King and Temple in Chronicles: A Contextual Approach to their Relations 9783666530968, 9783525530962

Citation preview

V&R

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Herausgegeben von Jan Christian Gertz, Dietrich-Alex Koch, Matthias Köckert, Hermut Lohr, Steven McKenzie, Joachim Schaper und Christopher Tuckett

Band 234

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Jozef Tino

King and Temple in Chronicles A Contextual Approach to their Relations

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ISBN 978-3-525-53096-2

© 2010, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Hinweis zu § 52a UrhG: Weder das Werk noch seine Teile dürfen ohne vorherige schriftliche Einwilligung des Verlages öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden. Dies gilt auch bei einer entsprechenden Nutzung für Lehr- und Unterrichtszwecke. Printed in Germany. Druck und Bindung: ® Hubert & Co., Göttingen Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.

Preface

As a student interested in post-exilic Judaism I decided to focus my research on the book of Chronicles. In recent decades scholarship marked considerable progress in our understanding of the Chronicler's milieu and theologico-political views, but, as is always the case, this increase in knowledge opened further fascinating and acute questions. This monograph is a revised version of the doctoral dissertation written at the University of Cambridge under the supervision of Prof. William Horbury. Prof. Horbury's unique ability to trace the links between different biblical texts, which represent a wide spectrum of perspectives on cardinal issues, contributed towards focusing my attention on the diversity of the Chronicler's theological environment. In order to prepare the ground for this research I began by examining the text of Chronicles as a unified composition, trying to seek and define the leitmotif which constitutes its axis. This served as the point of departure for further studies of biblical texts other than Chronicles, but related to it. On the basis of the evidence gathered in my analysis I finally attempted to present an explanation of the most likely theological-historical basis for the composition of Chronicles. I hope that my alternative view on this issue will constitute a modest contribution to the lively scholarly debate in the field. My gratitude must above all be expressed to my supervisor, Prof. William Horbury, whose profound understanding and experience in biblical studies in addition to his endless patience and encouragement were a source of inspiration and provided a solid foundation for my research. I am also indebted to Prof. Robert Gordon, who was of great help during my supervisor's absence and was always willing to discuss a variety of complex issues pertaining to my dissertation. His suggestions have proven invaluable and are much appreciated. There are of course others whose help and support made it possible for me to complete my research and publish this monograph. I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Ladislav Csontos, from the Theological Faculty of Trnava University, Slovakia. Thanks to Prof. Csontos' efforts to secure financial resources for my academic activities, I was able to embark on my PhD studies in Cambridge and complete them successfully. I would further like to thank my beloved Efrat Weiss for her patient and careful proofreading of my manuscript. In addition, I wish to express my sincerest gratitude

6

King and Temple in Chronicles

to Prof. Joachim Schaper who was very helpful indeed in preparing my dissertation for publication with Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht's FRLANT series. At last, but not least, I wish to thank my parents for their unrelenting support, and for instilling in me a love of Scripture and learning. This monograph is dedicated to them as an expression of my deepest respect and gratitude. Jozef Tino Bratislava, May 2009

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1.1 Status Questionis

9 9

1.2 Theocracy in Chronicles: with or without the Davidic dynasty?

12

1.3 Some preliminary methodological considerations 1.3.1 The relations between Chronicles and Sam-Kings 1.3.2 Methodology and structure

20 22 30

2. The composition of Chronicles: the history of Israel's monarchy examined through ruler-sanctuary relations

35

2.1 David was taken from following the sheep to be a ruler over Israel

36

2.2 One of David's sons will build a house (temple) for YHWH

46

2.3 YHWH will build a house (dynasty) for David

55

2.4 Summary

73

3. Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

76

3.1 The juridical context of the 'Law of the King' (Deut 16:18-20; 17:8-13) in its relation to Chronicles

76

3.2 The 'Law of the King' (Deut 17:14-20) and its relation to Chronicles

83

3.3 The ANE view of kingship elaborated by the Chronicler for Israel 3.4 The golden age in Chronicles 3.5 Summary 4. The book of Chronicles' King-Temple relations in the context of the shaping of the Psalter 4.1 Summary

89 94 105

108 117

8

King and Temple in Chronicles

5. The exilic and post-exilic messianic prophecy related to the theology of Chronicles

120

5.1 The dynastic promise of Jer 33:14-26 as an exposition of the new covenant

120

5.2 Ezek 37:22-28 as a model for the exposition of the dynastic promise in Chronicles

130

5.3 The David-Moses typology in the prophecy of Deutero-Zechariah 5.3.1 Zech 9:9-10 5.3.2 Zech 12:8

137 137 141

5.4 Summary

146

6. Conclusion

147

Selected Bibliography

162

Index

170

1. Introduction

1.1 Status questionis No one would question the fact that among the numerous building projects of Solomon the Temple was the most important one as it marks a new epoch in the history of Israel and its religion. The Relations between the Temple and the institution of monarchy in the biblical record are, however, a different issue. While the close relation between the two is stressed by such texts as 2 Sam 7:13-14 or 1 Kings 8:22, it is on the other hand strongly condemned by others (e.g. Ezek 43:8). This incompatibility naturally raises questions regarding the different rationales underlying the two respective approaches. No close scrutiny is necessary to understand that according to certain traditions the kingship of a human king in Israel is irreconcilable with the suzerainty of YHWH. In an attempt to reconstruct the historical reality of the given relations in the pre-exilic Israel, some mid-twentieth-century scholars, examining the evidence of certain Psalms, concluded that at the time of the monarchy the kingly office is intimately bound with the cult. The so called 'Myth and Ritual School' represented above all by Hooke1 and Engnell2 claims that the King of Israel is regarded as a divine incarnation in the same manner as in Egypt. Others, such as MowinckeP or Johnson4, while not entirely agreeing with the above-mentioned approach, still believe that the Israelite king is considered a divine mediator, i.e. a representative of the people before the deity. There is a considerable difference between the two afore-mentioned theories, but both share a common ground in recognizing that the ANE ideology of kingship is, through ritual patterns, also found in Israel. Both

S.H. Hooke (ed.), Myth and Ritual. Essays on the Myth and Ritual of Hebrews in Relation to the Culture Pattern of the Ancient East (London/New York: Oxford University Press, 1933); idem (ed.), The Labyrinth. Further Studies in the Relation Between Myth and Ritual in the Ancient World (London, NY: Macmillan Company, 1935). 2 I. Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1943). 3 S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1956 [Norwegian original 1951]). 4 A.R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1955).

10

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

views are countered by Frankfort. 5 As a result of a detailed study of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian monarchies, Frankfort concludes that distinctive cultural and religious environments do not produce identical ideologies of kingship. A different conception of kingship in the Syro-Palestine region, if compared to both Egypt and Mesopotamia, is confirmed by the texts found at Tell Mardikh (Ebla).6 The final redaction of the narrative of the so-called Deuteronomistic History (Dtr) has preserved the understanding of monarchy as an element foreign to Israel which is introduced under pressure only at a certain stage of its history. YHWH is thus considered an exclusive king in the ancient Israel, and the introduction of kingship as a 'human institution' arises precisely because it is viewed as an offence against His sovereignty. The Deuteronomistic History proves to be more complex than was previously presented by Noth in his Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. The postulation of a single author cannot explain all the inconsistencies included in the corpus, and it is equally unlikely that it is merely written in order to explain the loss of the kingdom, Temple and Land. Subsequent theories therefore unravel redactional layer(s) in Dtr. While in the English speaking word the theory of Cross7 has been widely established, the German environment is dominated by the theory of Smend.8 To outline Cross's approach it should first be noted that he views the dynastic promise as the centre of the whole of Dtr and at the same time as one of the main themes in the narrative. The other central theme, crucial to understanding Dtr's composition, is the sin of Jeroboam. The pericope depicting the prophecy of Ahijah to Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:29-39) suggests that the Northern Kingdom would have survived if Jeroboam and his successors would have obeyed the Law of Moses. Jeroboam is contrasted with David who was promised an everlasting kingdom, alluded to a number of times in the narrative of Kings (cf. 1 Kings 11:12-13, 34-36, 15:3—5a; 2 H. Frankfort Kingship and the Gods. A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 4 1962). 6 The designation EN -eb-la KI "king of Ebla" uses the Sumerian logogram EN. Muthing observes that while in the Sumerian civilization EN is used for the designation of "king-priest" from the most ancient times (Uruk-epoque), in Ebla the political, and therefore secular, function of this title is emphasised. The texts in general suggest a sharp distinction between political and religious spheres, although the role of the king and his family at the cult is attested when they offer sacrifices as a part of the official cult ceremony; cf. L.M. Muntingh, 'The Conception of Ancient Syro-Palestinian Kingship in the Light of Contemporary Royal Archives with Special Reference to the Recent Discoveries at Tell Mardikh (Ebla) in Syria', BMECCJ1 (1984) 1-10. 7 F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 274-89. 8 R. Smend, "Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte", in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: G. von Rad zum 70. Geburstag (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971) 494-509.

Introduction

11

Kings 8:18-19). The convergence of the two thematic lines - Jeroboam's sin and the promise of an everlasting dynasty to David - is found in the reign of Josiah. Josiah is taken as the new David since, according to 2 Kings 23:25, he is the only king throughout the history whose righteousness is unblemished. The text of 2 Kings 23:25 forms an inclusio with Deut 6:4-5 and creates a natural conclusion to Dtr which serves as propaganda for Josiah. This is the edition which Cross designated as Dtrl. A different author is responsible for the next part of 2 Kings 23:26-25:30, which is labelled as Dtr2 and is attributed to the exilic period. The ideology of this redaction is different from that of Dtrl. It is designed to complement the account of Dtrl and explain the destruction which happened not long after Josiah due to the sins of Manasseh. There is no hope for a revival of the Davidic monarchy in Dtr2. The method of Smend is considerably different from that of Cross. He recognizes the passages of Josh 1:7-9; 13:lbß—6; 23; Judg 1:1-2:9, 17, 20-21, 23 as redactional additions which, apart from stylistic features, could be separated from the other conquest narratives by a different assertion concerning the conquest of the land. While according to the first edition of the Deuteronomic History it is the entire land which is conquered by Joshua, who also uproots its former inhabitants, the redactional passages tell of an unaccomplished conquest with a significant number of people still occupying the land. The common feature of these redactional texts is their preoccupation with the Law and both are accordingly ascribed to the redaction designated as DtrN (Nomistic Deuteronomist). Smend's theory is further developed by Dietrich9 who besides DtrN postulates the redaction designated as DtrP (Prophetic Deuteronomist), and Veijola who extends Smend's redactional texts of DtrN to a part of Sam-Kings. 10 Smend later suggests that the Dtr redaction of the Tetrateuch is also produced by the DtrN redactors,11 and through this assumption extends their activity to the whole corpus of Gen-2 Kings. The common ground of the otherwise very different models of Cross and Smend is their agreement that the Deuteronomistic History contains (a) redactional layer(s) concerned with the Mosaic rather than with the Davidic covenant. This assertion points towards a conflict between the two regarding the given corpus - a problem which is directly related to the abovementioned issue of the incompatibility of the concurrent kingships of W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972). 10 T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomischen Darstellung (AASF 193; Helsinki: Suomaleinen Tiedeakademia, 1975). 11 R. Smend, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln: Kohlhammer, 4 1989), 125.

12

King and Temple in Chronicles

YHWH and David. This problem, in turn, has a direct impact on the authority of the king in cultic matters. Interestingly, the incompatibility of the kingships of YHWH and an earthly king emerges with great force in the exilic and post-exilic periods when the monarchy no longer exists. The book of Chronicles was most likely written in the late Persian or early Hellenistic period and represents an alternative historical account focused on the monarchy as the axis of Israel's history. My aim in this work is not to present a historical analysis of the book against other available literary evidence thereby assessing the historical reality of the monarchy in the pre-exilic period. Rather, in dealing with predominantly exilic and post-exilic texts, I shall focus on the ideology embedded in the texts which presents the hope for a renewal of the Davidic kingdom in times when the monarchy is no longer a contemporary reality. To be more precise, I shall pose and attempt to answer the question of how a given ideology tackles the problem of the 'new David's' relations with the Temple.

1.2 Theocracy in Chronicles: with or without the Davidic dynasty? The approach of different scholars to the Palace-Temple relations in Chronicles can very roughly be sorted according to the criterion of whether the book is taken as a part of the lager corpus which includes Ezra-Nehemiah, or as an individual, independent work. A single authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah is taken for granted in the ancient tradition, which is based on the testimony of the Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 15a and views Ezra as the common author of both. A shift in this perception is provided by Zunz, who argues against the single authorship of Ezra for all books, but further believes in the common authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. 12 In recent scholarship this view has been retained, among others by Ackroyd,13 Blenkinsopp,14 Becker,15 Clines,16 or

L. Zunz, "Dibre-Hajamim oder die Bücher der Chronik", in Die gottesdienstliche Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt (Berlin: A. Aher, 1832) 13—36. 13 P.R. Ackroyd, "Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah: The Concept of Unity", in О. Kaiser (ed.), Lebendige Forschung im Alten Testament (ZAW 100 Supplement; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1988) 189-201. 14 J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra - Nehemiah (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1989), 47-54. 15 J. Becker, 1 Chronik (NEB 18; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1986), 8-9; idem, Esra, Nehemiah (NEB 25; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1990), 5-7. 16 D.J.A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester (NCB; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott Publ., 1984), 9-12.

Introduction

13

Gunneweg.17 These scholars tend to overlook any programmatic intent in Chronicles regarding the continuation of the Davidic dynasty. These scholars generally claim that the only institution of relevance is the Temple, and any other locus of power encountered in the book is subordinate to it. Davidic kings, therefore, only serve to complement the depiction of the history of the Temple, which is rebuilt following the return from exile. The arguments which support a theocratic ideal with no place for a Davidic king in Chronicles are systematically presented by Rudolph, Caquot, and, more recently, by Riley. In the introduction to his commentary, Rudolph argues that Chronicles was written in order to present the realization of theocracy on Israelite soil; that theocracy is founded on the principle of election of Judah and Jerusalem where David has his throne and YHWH His Temple. God's rule is at first realized in both David's and Solomon's reigns, but is subsequently endangered by the failures of later Davidic kings. In the end, YHWH intervenes and brings an end to the Davidic dynasty. However, in His mercy He allows a new community to be raised after the calamity, and it is this community which epitomizes the theocracy of the Chronicler's era.18 The election of Judah and Jerusalem constitutes a Leitmotiv in Chronicles and serves to emphasise this election as opposed to the Samaritan post-exilic community. Rudolph therefore views Chronicles as a product of anti-Samaritan polemics.19 The theocracy presented by the Chronicler is, according to Rudolph, founded on two pillars: the Davidic monarchy and the Temple. The very fact that the Davidic monarchy is considered to be one of the pillars implies that the authority of kings in cultic matters is relatively unrestricted in the book. That which remains restricted to them is entrance to the Temple (cf. 2 Chron 23:6) and performance of the whole sacrificial act (cf. 2 Chron 26:18-19). Sacrifices are, in Chronicles, still the domain of the priesthood.20 For Rudolph, the characteristic feature of theocracy which distinguishes Chronicles from the prophetic tradition is the almost complete absence of an element of eschatological expectation.21 The only exception where such undertones are encountered is 1 Chron 17, where the everlasting Davidic dynasty is emphasised, and 2 Chron 6:42, where the plea for remembering

A.J.H. Gunneweg, "Zur Interpretation der Bücher Esra-Nehemiah", in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Vienna 1980: International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament (SVT 32; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 146-61. 18 W. Rudolph, Chronikbüchern (HAT 21; Tübingen: Mohr, 1955), viii-ix. 19 Rudolph, Chronikbüchern, ix. 20 Rudolph, Chronikbüchern, xxi—xxii. 21 Rudolph, Chronikbüchern, xxiv.

14

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

'the mercies of David' is pronounced by Solomon.22 Since Rudolph views Ezra-Nehemiah as the second part of the common historical corpus of Chronicles, he mentions in this context Neh 9:32, 36, where a hint of a plea for deliverance from political bondage can be discerned. However, Ezra does not contain any criticism of the pagan hegemony. On the contrary, it shows a friendly attitude towards the Persian government which enables the restoration of the Temple and guarantees peace and security. Rudolph comments that the very fact that the entire historical corpus of the Chronicler contains only such obscure indications of eschatology, indicates that the topic is of little interest to him. It should not be overlooked that the author of Ezra-Nehemiah aims to portray the origins of the new community which is assembled around the Temple and observes the Law although it is separated from its people. This Jewish community which is presented in Neh 12:44-13:3, epitomizes the realization of the theocratic ideal, leaving out any space for an eschatological horizon. This is therefore the climax of the Chronicler's historical work. The Davidic dynasty, as one pillar of theocracy, fails, but the second pillar - the Temple - remains and represents continuity. This time God leads a Persian king to accomplish His divine plan which naturally restricts the significance of the Davidic dynasty confined to the period of David and Solomon, when the regulations regarding cult were given. Upon these regulations the new community which upholds theocracy is based. 23 This view of Chronicler's ideology is further developed by Plöger in his monograph Theokratie und Eschatologie. Plöger agrees with Rudolph about the anti-Samaritan orientation of the Chronicler as well as with the contention that the Chronicler is convinced about the status of the Jewish community as an embodiment of a theocratic ideal. However, he also adds that the latter view is not original to the Chronicler, but is adopted "from the Priestly Writing's understanding of how Israel ought to regard itself'. 24 According to Plöger there are two groups in contemporary Judaism who are defined by their unique attitude to eschatology. Traces of the 'eschatological group' are found in such texts as Isa 24-27; Zech 12-14; Joel and Daniel, while Chronicles and the Priestly Writings are products of the essentially non-eschatological mainstream in Judaism. Caquot is another scholar who argues for Chronicles' exclusive theocratic orientation. In the phrase Τ Π '"ΤΟΠ (2 Chron 6:42), where Rudolph admits the presence of eschatological undertones, Caquot reads a subjective

22

Rudolph, Chronikbüchern, xxiii. Rudolph, Chronikbüchern, xxiii. 24 O. Plöger, Theokratie und Eschatologie 1959), 50-6. 23

(WMANT 2; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag,

Introduction

15

genitive which refers only to David's preparatory activities for the Temple completed by Solomon. No interest for the restoration of a Davidic monarchy is found in the phrase, only for a lasting soteriological role of the Temple.25 The kingship of YHWH was at the time bound with the Davidic kings (cf. 2 Chron 13:8), but nothing suggests that it necessarily depended on the latter. As an evidence for the lack of interest in the Davidic covenant Caquot adduces the fact that the Chronicler omits in his account such texts as 1 Kings 11:13, 32, and 36.26 These passages refer to Judah's rescue for the sake of David and to the latter's always having a lamp before YHWH in Jerusalem. The only exception in this regard is 2 Chron 21:7 which affirms the covenant in this manner. The proclamation of Abijah in 2 Chron 13:5 about the eternal covenant with David is, according to Caquot, understandable as coming from Solomon's successor who claims his legitimacy. However, it cannot be taken as the real conviction of the Chronicler for whom the exclusive means for achieving YHWH's grace and salvation is the Temple and its cult.27 The essential task of David and Solomon consists merely of preparing and building the Temple. One text which is of crucial importance in this regard is, according to Caquot, 1 Chron 28:20-21 where David proclaims that YHWH will not fail Solomon or forsake him, until (ТУ) all the work for the service of the Temple is completed. Caquot maintains that what happens after that is not as important for the Chronicler. The task of the Davidic Dynasty, he claims, finishes upon the completion of the Temple.28 The exalted status of David and Solomon in Chronicles must therefore only be understood in the framework of their roles as YHWH's agents for the construction of the Temple.29 The kings after Solomon are regarded by the Chronicler as examples for the presentation of the doctrine of immediate retribution.30 In the end disaster is brought about by crimes against the Temple, not against the dynasty (cf. 2 Chron 36:15).31 All the theories presented above assume the common authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. If Rudolph takes Neh 12:44-13:3 as the climax of the whole corpus, it is natural that he would deny any programmatic intentions pertaining to the Davidic rule. Moreover, in his understanding, messianic expectations are intrinsically eschatological, and therefore the

A. Caquot, "Peut-on-parler de messianisme dans l'oeuvre du Chroniste?", RTP 3/16 (1966) 110-20, on p. 118. 26 Caquot, "Messianisme", 119. 27 Caquot, "Messianisme", 119. 28 Caquot, "Messianisme", 118. 29 Caquot, "Messianisme", 120. 30 Caquot, "Messianisme", 119. 31 Caquot, "Messianisme", 119.

16

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

absence of interest in eschatology in Chronicles would be a sufficient argument against messianism. Caquot's argumentation is more anchored in the text of Chronicles itself where he downplays all possible evidence for the Davidic dynasty as a programmatic issue. Williamson32 contests Caquot's claim that the phrase Τ Π ΉΟΠ is intended as a subjective genitive by the author - i.e. "preuves durables de fidelite donees par David"33 - only refers to the preparatory activity of David. Williamson challenges Caquot's argumentation on two points: that (1) the meaning of a subjective genitive is an understanding of ancient versions,34 and that (2) based on grammatical considerations, if "ΤΟΠ governs a genitive it is always construed subjectively.35 In both cases Williamson brings forward additional evidence in support of his claim. In addition, he disproved Beuken's argument that the context of the phrase in Chronicles strengthens Caquot's claim.36 Williamson thus sufficiently shows that the phrase "ΡΊ"Γ '"ΤΟΠ cannot be used as an argument for the absence of interest in the restoration of the Davidic monarchy in Chronicles. The claim that an omission of the statements in favour of the validity of the everlasting Davidic covenant in 1 Kings 11:13, 32, 36 points to its denial by the Chronicler, is a misunderstanding of the latter's compositional technique and theology.37 The absence of these verses is due to their placement in the periscope, which is intentionally omitted by the Chronicler in light of his own presentation of the division of the kingdom. This issue will be discussed in further detail in Chapter Two. The understanding of 1 Chron 28:20-21 as evidence for the presentation of the task of the completion of the Davidic Dynasty after the Temple is built would not be convincing either. As Kelly points out, in this sentence hebr. "ГУ "until" can very well be taken in the durative instead of the temporally exclusive sense. The durative sense of "ГУ is attested in some other places in the MT38, and in this particular case would mean that divine help is promised to Solomon throughout the period of the construction of the

32 33

H.G.M. Williamson, "The Sure Mercies of David", JSS 23 (1978) 31-49. A. Caquot, "Les 'Graces de David'. A propos d'Isa'ie 55/3b", Semitica 15 (1965) 45-59,

on p. 51. 34

Williamson, "Sure Mercies", 32-5. Williamson, "Sure Mercies", 35-40. 36 Williamson, "Sure Mercies", 41-8; cf. W.A.M. Beuken, "Isa. 55, 3-5: the Reinterpretation of David", Bijdragen XXXV (1974) 49-64. 37 Cf. B.E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles (JSOTSup 211; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 145. 38 Judg 3:26; 1 Sam 14:19; 2 Kings 9:22; Eccl 12:1, 2, 6; Prov 8:26, cf. Kelly, Retribution, 144 n. 19. 35

Introduction

17

Temple.39 YHWH's blessing upon Solomon is indeed apparent also in the subsequent period following the completion of the Temple (2 Chron 9).40 Caquot's observation that the disaster in the end was caused by crimes against the Temple and not against the dynasty (cf. 2 Chron 36:15) assumes that these two institutions could be explained and treated separately. However, in Chronicles such an approach cannot be defended as will be argued in Chapter Two. The most recent systematic attempt to interpret Chronicles as a portrayal of theocracy which does not presuppose the Davidic dynasty has been provided by Riley. Unlike other scholars before him who shared this view, Riley recognizes the different authorship of Chronicles and Ez-ra-Nehemiah. His explanation, therefore, draws entirely on the evidence given in the text of Chronicles. According to Riley, the gift of the dynasty as presented in Chronicles, is primarily bestowed for the purpose of temple building. He finds an evidence for this in 1 Chron 22:8-10; 28:3-7 as well as in the fact that Solomon's only function is the building of the Temple. Therefore the centre of the covenant with David resides not only in the everlasting dynasty, but rather in the task of temple building. A fulfilment of the covenant would accordingly consist in the building of the Temple rather than in the everlasting Davidic dynasty. To give an additional force to his argument, Riley argues that both mentions of the word ΓΡΠ in the dynastic promise (cf. 1 Chron 17:10, 14) refer to the Temple rather than to the Davidic dynasty.41 Upon the completion of the Temple the text of 2 Chron 7:17-18 is rendered in a conditional manner with regard to the continuation of the monarchy. This means that the Davidic dynasty can only continue through the keeping of the Law of YHWH. Since by the time of the Chronicler the monarchy no longer exists, the conditionality refers to the transfer of the Davidic heritage to the cultic life of Israel. Thus the text of Isa 55:3, which is alluded to in 2 Chron 6:42, may constitute a further effort by the author to show that the promise of David is now realized in the community gathered around the Temple rather than in the continuing dynasty. Two places in 2 Chron are usually presented as evidence for the monarchic concern of the author after the division of the monarchy: 2 Chron 13:5 and 21:7. Both are, however, explained by Riley in a different way. The speech of Abijah, where it is stated that kingship over Israel is forever given to David and his descendants by the 'covenant of salt' (Π*7Ώ

39

Kelly, Retribution, 144. Kelly, Retribution, 144. 41 W. Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles. Worship and the Reinterpretation (JSOTSup 160; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 183-5. 40

of History

18

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

ΠΉΠ) (cf. 2 Chron 13:5), is interpreted by Riley as referring to the cult, similar to Num 18:19.42 The cultic interpretation is according to him supported by Abijah's speech, since Jeroboam and Israel are therein accused of abandoning the proper cult in relinquishing the Davidic rule. As a result, the Northerners lack legitimate cultic personnel, legitimate sacrifices and legitimate cultic equipment, thus generating their defeat in the war with Judah (2 Chron 13:12, 14).43 During the time of Jehoram it is said that "YHWH would not destroy the house of David because of the covenant that He had made with him, and since He had promised to give a lamp (T3) to him and to his descendants forever" (2 Chron 21:7). Riley understands V3 as the Jerusalem Temple (and its cultus).44 As the kingship is only given for the sake of the cult, the monarchy ends after the development of the cult is completed. This takes place during the reign of Josiah at the time of the Passover celebration, since this festive occasion was based on the just discovered Book of the Law which had not been known before. After the Passover, the break which marks a transfer of YHWH's turning away from the Davidic dynasty is introduced (cf. 2 Chron 35:22). What happens to Josiah could therefore not be restricted to individual retribution, but should be seen as a part of YHWH's plan after the Davidic dynasty fulfils its role regarding the Temple. Riley views the story of Saul as a paradigm, and compares 2 Chron 35:22 to 1 Chron 10:13. The ideology of Chronicles as presented by Riley is fundamentally the same as the one found in Ezra-Nehemiah: Israel is by the will of YHWH the suzerain under the Persian rule, and no longer yearns for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty. The only thing which remains of importance is the Temple. Riley moreover argues that the Davidic promise is entirely assimilated into the cult. Pure cultic interpretation of such issues as ΓΡΠ in 1 Chron 17:10, the 'covenant of salt' (Π*7Ώ ΠΉΠ) (cf. 2 Chron 13:5) and the 'lamp' П 1 ]) promised to David and his descendants, is tendentious. The term ГРП in 1 Chron 17:10 clearly signifies 'dynasty', and only in v. 14 the same expression is used in the meaning of 'Temple'. This technique underscores the intimate link between Palace and Temple in the view of the Chronicler (cf. Chapter Two). The phrase 'covenant of salt ' т З ) (cf. 2 Chron 13:5) is, outside of Chronicles, indeed only used in its cultic meaning and necessarily bears cultic undertones also in our case. However, in the context of the speech of Riley, King and Cultus, 117—18. Riley, King and Cultus, 118. Riley, King and Cultus, 179 n. 3.

Introduction

19

Abijah it primarily refers to the Davidic dynasty and, again, only underscores the interconnection of Palace and Temple. Nothing suggests that the only function of the Palace here is to build the Temple and establish its cult. I shall argue that cultic undertones in the context of the hope for a new David are also found in post-exilic texts outside of Chronicles (cf. Chapters 5.3 and 5.4). Moreover, positioning the Davidic kingship along with the cult in the post-exilic period is natural, and is attested in redactional prophetic texts such as e.g. Jer 33:14-26, or Ezek 37:24-28 (cf. Chapters 5.1 and 5.2). Finally, Riley's suggestion that the 'lamp' (T3) in 2 Chron 21:7 may refer to the Temple and its cultus is arbitrary. Hanson has shown that 2 Chron 21:7 as well as 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19 explain the meaning of T 3 as corresponding to that found in Assyrian annals i.e. "dominion, sovereign authority." In the case of 2 Chron 21:7 this parallel is even more evident since the deity gives to the vassal king the right of kingship explicitly in the covenantal context, as found in Assyrian annals.45 A more essential problem with Riley's approach is that his argument stands and falls on the plausibility of his proposal concerning the completion of the development of the cult at Passover during the reign of Josiah. Riley's explanation presumes that this Passover provides the climax for the whole story of Chronicles, after which both cult and the role of the Davidic dynasty are completed. It has generally been recognized, however, that the climax of Chronicles is reached in Solomon's reign, when the Temple is built and after which the monarchy is divided. This is supported, and, we may even assert, confirmed, by the fact that the qualities presented by the reigns of David and Solomon provide a criterion according to which retribution theology assesses the monarchs after the division. It has also been plausibly argued that unlike Dtr which portrays Josiah as the greatest monarch after the division, the Chronicler chooses Hezekiah due to the fact that he is theologically modelled on Solomon.46 This implicitly assumes what has already been stated; that the Chronicler considers the reign of Solomon as a climax, and, at the same time, contradicts Riley's contention that Josiah is presented in Chronicles as the most important figure after the division of the monarchy. Both arguments presented above shed a different light on Riley's observation about the gradual development of the cult until its final completion at Josiah's Passover. This development cannot be taken as a Leitmotiv, but 45

J.D. Hanson, "The Song of Heshbon and David's Nil", HTR 61 (1968) 297-320, on pp.

314-17. 46

H.G.M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 119-25; R.B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 228.

20

King and Temple in Chronicles

only as one of the voices in the polyphony of motifs in Chronicles, e.g. the election of Judah, the role of the cultic prophets, etc. That the existence of the Temple cannot be explained without the Davidic Dynasty and vice versa is plain from the Chronicler's version of the dynastic promise, a kernel of the whole book, and is elucidated in the rest of Chronicles by means of the retribution theology. Obedience to the Law represents in Chronicles a positive approach to the Temple and is rewarded by prosperity of the kingdom and building activity, by the popular support of kings and their progeny, by a large army and through victory in warfare. Disobedience, on the other hand, results in the judgement of kings.47 The Leitmotiv is therefore found in Palace-Temple relations and their development in the history of Judah's kingship. The central theme does thus not reside in the cult alone or in its development and practice by the Davidic kings. This issue will be treated and explained in further detail in Chapters Two and Three.

1.3 Some preliminary methodological considerations As indicated in the title, I consider the corpus of 1 - 2 Chronicles as independent from that of Ezra-Nehemiah. There is no special paragraph in this study which analyzes this issue in detail, but in the course of my argumentation I will trace important points with regard to the concept of Israel. This concept is treated so differently in those respective books that it is, in my opinion, sufficient evidence for their separate authorship. Thanks, above all, to the research of Japhet48 and Williamson,49 and more recently to that of Knoppers50 and Kalimi,51 the understanding of the main parts of Chronicles as the work of a single author, independent from that of Ezra-Nehemiah, does now have a sound basis. Even if the book underwent some redactional elaboration, there is little doubt that the genealogies (1 Chron 1-9) and the list of temple personnel and administration (1 Chron 23-27) essentially form an original part of the composition. All this bears serious consequences for the interpretation of any of the themes inherent in

47

Dillard, Chronicles, 77-80. S. Japhet, "The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew", VT 18 (1968) 330-71. 49 Williamson, Israel, 89-95; H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah (Old Testament Guides; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 87-8. 50 G.N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1—9. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York/London: Doubleday, 2004), 72-89. 51 I. Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005). 48

Introduction

21

the book. The unity of the genealogical section with the subsequent narration is of special importance to my argument. In agreement with most of the recent scholars I view 1 Chron 1 - 9 to be an original part of Chronicles. A well-argued explanation of this specific issue was provided by Johnson52 and then reiterated and expanded by later commentators. Comparing the leading motifs of both narrative and genealogical sections Johnson has convincingly shown that the theological perspective in 1 Chron 1 - 9 corresponds to the rest of Chronicles. The points both sections have in common are: (1) a concern for all twelve tribes of Israel; (2) an ambiguous approach to the northern tribes which, on the one hand, form a necessary part of 'all Israel', but, on the other hand, must, in religious terms, be subjected to Judah and Jerusalem where the sole legitimate place of worship is found; (3) the idea of retribution is systematically presented in the narrative part, but is also found in the genealogical section (cf. 1 Chron 2:7; 5:19-20, 25-26); (4) scanty mention of the exodus events; (5) the specific military terminology used in the same way in both narratives and in the genealogies (the phrase 'mighty warriors' used in apposition to 'heads of fathers houses' or to the men under their command). In addition to the previous points Williamson notices two more important observations: first, in both parts the attention to Jacob in the history of the nation along with the fact that he is regularly called "Israel" is notable; second, the description of the battle in 1 Chron 5:20 resembles the accounts in the later narrative.53 In the monographs of both Kartveit and Oeming 1 Chron 1 - 9 is read as the programmatic introduction to the subsequent narration and its organic part.54 Kartveit argues for 1 Chron 1 as a mappa mundi in which Israel is the centre. In the subsequent text the tribes of Israel are arranged according to a geographical pattern which territorially unfolds from and is completed in Jerusalem. Geography of 1 Chron 1 - 9 thus forms a closed unit which focuses on Judah and Jerusalem, thus serving as a model for territorial claims in the future. Oeming designates 1 Chron 1 - 9 as "Vorhalle" and defines its genre as "proleptisches Summarium". In other words, the genealogical part summarizes all the information necessary for understanding the narrative section M.D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies. (SNTSMS 8; Cambridge: University Press, 1969), 47-55. 53 H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982), 39-40. 54 M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel: Die 'genealogische Vorhalle' 1 Chronik 1-9 (BWANT 128; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1990); Μ. Kartveit, Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in 1 Chronik 1-9 (ConBOT 28; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wikseil, 1989).

22

King and Temple in Chronicles

and contains 'kerygma' elucidating how the ancient history is relevant to the events which take place in the Chronicler's time. A rather similar conclusion (apart from the element of kerygma) is reached by Japhet. Examining the problem of conquest and settlement in Chronicles, she states: "In 1 Chronicles 2 - 9 is all that is needed in way of introduction to the historical description starting with David [...] Thus, when the historical narrative starts with David's reign, the entity of people and the entity of land are established facts".55 A fresh contribution to the given problem is presented by Knoppers.56 Through several examples he argues that 1 Chron 1 - 9 can best be explained through the context of Greek genealogies. Among these "Troika" of Hellanicus provides a good parallel for a historiographic work where a large network of genealogies is followed by a long sequence of narratives.57 Plausibility of this comparison is enhanced by the fact that the process of Hellenization of Palestine started long before Alexander's conquest and therefore comprises the time in which Chronicles were written.58 A historiography introduced by a large genealogical corpus is thus not a unique phenomenon in the cultural environment of the Chronicler's age. This fact, together with Johnson's above-mentioned arguments favour the unity of the genealogical and narrative sections providing a strong case for Chronicles originally introduced by genealogies.

1.3.1 The relations between Chronicles and Sam-Kings The issue which, to a great extent, determines the methodological approach in the study of Chronicles is the question of its source material. Since the treatise of W.M.L. de Wette was published in 1806,59 the book of Chronicles has been considered as a later elaboration on Sam-Kings by the majority of scholars. Recently, the discovery and publication of Qumran Scroll 4QSam a corrected the traditional view that the Chronicler's Vorlage is identical to our present Masoretic text. It became clear that as a Vorlage to the Chronicler did not serve the text of the proto-Masoretic type, but an Old Palestinian text-type corresponding to 4QSam a from

55

S. Japhet, "Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles", JBL 98 (1979) 205-18, on p. 218. G.N. Knoppers, "Greek historiography and the Chronicler's history: a reexamination", JBL 122 (2003) 627-50. 57 Knoppers, "Greek", 643. 58 Knoppers, "Greek", 648-50. 59 W.M.L. de Wette, Kritischer Versuch über die Glaubwürdigkeit der Bücher der Chronik mit Hinsicht auf die Geschichte der Mosaischen Bücher und Gesetzgebung: Ein Nachtrag zu den Vaterschen Untersuchungen über den Pentateuch (Halle: Schimmelpfennig & Compagnie, 1806). 56

Introduction

23

which the Greek translation of Samuel was also constructed. Considering this, on the basis of twelve examples, Lemke shows that the methodological approach, in which we explain every difference between the Masoretic versions of Chronicles and Sam-Kings as the tendentious interest of the Chronicler, is flawed. Ulrich, in comparing 4QSam a with the different textual versions of Samuel - the LXX, the MT, and the one witnessed by Josephus - corroborates this conclusion and further discovers that an Old Palestinian text-type is also used by Josephus in his Antiquities. Ulrich further contrasts the text of Chronicles with 4QSam a and MT versions respectively, and observes that, with one exception, Chronicles never agrees with MT against 4QSam a . On the other hand, it agrees with 4QSam a against MT in 24 readings.60 However, the assumption that the Chronicler's Vorlage of Kings also differed from the Masoretic text lacked any deeper analysis. This challenge was taken up by S.L. McKenzie who compared the textual evidence of 2 Chron with its parallels in Kings in order to approve or disprove the abovementioned assumption.61 His methodological approach is based on the comparison of the major textual witnesses of 1 Kings (Masoretic, Old Greek, and Lucianic recension) with the MT of Chronicles.62 This analysis proves that in terms of quantity, there are fewer agreements of the MT of Chronicles with Old Greek against the MT of Kings than there are of MT of Kings and MT of Chronicles against the Old Greek. In terms of quality, most of the places of agreement of the Old Greek with MT of Chronicles are due to expansion or other error in MT of Kings, or can be viewed as independent expansion in MT of Chronicles and the Old Greek. S.L. McKenzie's study therefore leads to the conclusion that MT of Kings and MT of Chronicles reflect a single text type i.e. that the Chronicler's Vorlage of Kings was proto-Rabbinic. 63 In tracing interpretative tendencies in Chronicles, it could thus be concluded that, at least in the case of Sam, the Chronicler is more faithful to his Vorlage than was originally thought and that we must be more cautious in evaluating his creative approach. A fundamentally different approach to the given problem has more recently been presented by Auld. "Independent supplementation of a common inherited text," he writes, "may be a better model for understanding the inter-

E.C. Ulrich, Jr., The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM19; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), 163. 61 S.L. McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomic History (HSM 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 119-155. 62 McKenzie, Chronicler's Use, 119. 63 McKenzie, Chronicler's Use, 154-55.

24

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

relations of Sam-Kings and Chronicles than the dominant view since de Wette which portrays Chronicles as a substantial reshaping of Sam-Kings". 64 As implicitly stated in the quotation, the suggestion of a common Vorlage, which is no longer available to us, is not a new one. One influential theory which predates de Wette is that of Eichhorn who argued that behind the narratives of Chronicles and Sam-Kings resides the text of the biographies of David and Solomon.65 This text was shaped differently in the course of transmission, and the respective biblical authors thus used two different versions of the original bibliographies as their source, thus explaining both the similarities and the differences in their accounts.66 The existence of the shared source postulated by Eichhorn is purely hypothetical, but enables the latter to present Chronicles as a historically-valid account, which is based on trustworthy, non-canonical source material.67 Auld's suggestion moves in a different direction in that he postulates that the shared source is creatively amplified in Chronicles, and above all in Sam-Kings, which are both composed in the post-exilic era through the lenses of a later period. Thus, neither could be considered as a reliable historical witness to the pre-exilic times for which they respectively account. According to Auld the reconstruction of a common source is supported by textual-critical observations based on the research of Julio Trebolle Barrera. One of Trebolle's important observations is the agreement between Chronicles and the Lucianic version of Kings, which bears witness to an ancient textual tradition. Trebolle further observes that the ancient witnesses to Kings do not vary much from the common material that Kings share with Chronicles. On the other hand, their greatest variation is found in texts which have no parallel in Chronicles. This, according to Auld, is best explained by the suggestion that the latter texts were added to the already existent material in both Kings and Chronicles, while there were different views as to where they should be placed. If Auld's theory is correct, the methodological approach to Chronicles should be reconsidered, and this would naturally also determine the choice of method in any study dealing with the book. It is very difficult to present

A.G. Auld, Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible's Kings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 4. 65 J.G. Eichhorn, Einleitung ins Alte Testament II (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1781), 630-56. 66 K. Peltonen, "Function, Explanation, and Literary Phenomena: Aspects of Source Criticism as Theory and Method in the History of Chronicles Research.", in M.P. Graham/S.L. McKenzie (ed.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 18-69, on p. 22. 67 Peltonen, Function, 22-3.

Introduction

25

a concise version of Auld's argument, but a short review of his monograph is necessary. Following the introductory part Auld offers a discussion on a sample of texts to present his argument about a common Vorlage for Sam-Kings and Chronicles. First we encounter Solomon's vision at Gibeon where the respective accounts of Kings and Chronicles are very different. Chronicles is considered by Auld to be close to his reconstructed common source while Kings rewrites the main body of the story far more comprehensively. Texts which present the building of the Temple and the Palace follow where Auld concludes again that Chronicles preserves an earlier version of the account if compared to Kings and that it is closer to the shorter Greek text of Kings than to its Masoretic version. Concerning the text which presents Solomon's administration, Auld observes that "the Book of Kings in Hebrew, the Greek version of that book and Chronicles resemble and differ from each other on this topic in a similar fashion to their inter-relations concerning the building reports".68 The respective accounts on the transition from David to Solomon evince the most substantial differences between Kings and Chronicles. Kings adds the report about problems with the designation of Solomon as king, and the "advice from a David who has intrigued and manipulated his way through the Book of Samuel is directed towards encouraging similar statecraft in his son (1 Kings 2:5-9)". 69 The treatment of David and Solomon in Sam-Kings is further depicted as more political whereas in Chronicles they are more religiously-tinted. This is also explained by the example of the theological theme of 'rest'. While in the Former Prophets it is said in the dynastic promise that David is given 'rest' from all his enemies - the same rest that was given to Israel under Joshua (Josh 21:44; 22:4; 23:1), in Chronicles the topic of rest for David in the dynastic promise is lacking, and the theme is bound with Solomon and David, and later also in connection with temple building (1 Chron 22:9, 18). While the Former Prophets extend the theme to the earlier period of Joshua, Chronicles extends it in the opposite direction and attaches it to Asa (2 Chron 14:5, 6; 15:15) and Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 20:30). Both Sam-Kings and Chronicles use the 'rest' theme in addition to the shared text, and each of them applies the theme in a different manner. The third chapter is a presentation of the shared text from Saul's death to the death of Solomon and the succession of Rehoboam. Auld argues that the reconstructed shared Vorlage is coherent and self-sufficient. In the next chapter titled "Judah's Other Kings" Auld deals with Manasseh, Asa, Amon, Josiah, and Hezekiah. Therein he again argues and exAuld, Kings Without Privilege, 29. Auld, Kings Without Privilege, 38.

26

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

plains how the shared source was expanded in Kings as well as in Chronicles. Following a discussion of Asa and Amon, Auld offers a 'preliminary stocktaking' where he describes the gradual process of text-expansion in this part as a 'rolling corpus' - a label used by McKane in his commentary on Jeremiah in order to explain his own view on the gradual growth of its text. The following chapter is again a presentation of the shared text from Rehoboam at Shechem to Zedekiah. The chapter superscripted as "Moses and David in the story of Judah's Kings from Solomon" starts off with the consideration that only three out of eight passages in Kings and ten passages in Chron where Moses appears are shared by both Kings and Chron. All of these chapters appear to be related to Deuteronomy. This also applies to the five Kings' pluses concerning Moses, while Chron's pluses are closer to the priestly account in the book of Numbers. The material of pluses assumes the sanction of the Mosaic authority and the "separate emphasis of the diverging texts of Kings and Chronicles are variously correlated with different strands of what we know as the Pentateuch".70 A positive assessment of Solomon in the shared Vorlage is identical to that of Chronicles, while in Kings he is portrayed as the one who acts as an evil-doer in the eyes of YHWH (cf. 1 Kings 11:6). This, according to Auld, does not pertain just to the end of his life, since the comment in 1 Kings 11:4, indicating that Solomon's wives turn away his heart after other gods when he is old, does not provide evidence for a periodisation of the latter's reign. The text only states that the results of his actions manifest themselves in his old age.71 In any case, the negative picture of Solomon in Kings comes from a different hand. Therefore, according to Auld it is not the Chronicler who theologically interprets Solomon as an ideal figure, but the author(s) of Kings' pluses who see him as a one who sinned against the Law of Moses. An evidence connected with the three common mentions of Moses in the shared text is according to Auld also elucidated by Trebolle Barrera's observation that the omission of part 1 Kings 2:12-21:29 from the kaige recension of Kings corresponds with the complete absence of the word 'Torah' in this portion of the Hebrew text, and its prominent presence outside of this portion in 1 Kings 1:1-2:11 + 1 Kings 22-2 Kings 25. In contrast, terms such as 'statutes', 'ordinances', and 'commandments' which are common to 1 Kings 2:12-21:29 are not used to such an extent elsewhere. Auld states: "The implication is clear: that at least part of the motivation for the revision of the Greek Kings was a partial revision carried out on Hebrew Kings in which torah has replaced or supplemented other expressions Auld, Kings Without Privilege, 132. Auld, Kings Without Privilege, 141-42.

Introduction

27

of divine demand".72 Then he comments on 2 Kings 21:8/2 Chron 33:8; 2 Kings 14:6/2 Chron 25:4; 1 Kings 8:9/2 Chron 5:10 to show and explain traces of this revision in these places. Deuteronomy, according to Auld, is influenced by the written history of Judah, not the other way around. It should therefore be dated later than the so-called Deuteronomistic History and did not serve as the basis for the composition of the latter. The authors of Deuteronomy democratized a promise, originally understood as belonging to the Davidic dynasty, in favour of the nation of Israel. Auld thus denies that Kings as such is a Deuteronomistic composition, but taking Solomon's story as a model text he presents a method by which traces of the Deuteronomistic hand can be identified. There are six layers of material in this account: (a) material that is shared by both Hebrew and Greek texts and has the same position within the common text; (b) material of the common text that occurs in different positions between MT and LXX; (c) pluses in Kings documented in both MT and LXX, appearing in the same order; (d) pluses in Kings documented in both MT and LXX, but are placed differently; (e) Kings' pluses special to MT and relocations of common materials; (f) revisions made to both MT and LXX - such as torah in 1 Kings 2:3 according to Trebolle Barrera. Auld thus claims that variation in the position of textual material is a sufficient criterion for defining the provenance of a composition. He acknowledges the style which resembles "in some ways those we have been calling for decades the Deuteronomist"73 only in the cases of (c) and (d). In the cases of (a) and (b) he connects Solomon's prayer, the vision reports and Nathan's oracle with the royal Psalms rather than with Deuteronomy. In a comparison of Jeremiah and Kings Auld finds several parallel points. Of special importance among those points is "the story of Israel as a negative example for Judah." Auld claims that the vector of influence generally leads from Jeremiah to Kings, not vice versa, and that the view that the prose portions of Jeremiah are Deuteronomistic creations, or that the book is edited by Deuteronomists should be re-examined in the light of this study of the origin of Kings. There are places in Jeremiah where the prophet juxtaposes the situation of Judah and Israel using Israel's story to probe Judah's fate (e.g. Jer 3:1-4:4). Since the history of the Northern Kingdom is not part of the shared Vorlage he explains its role in Kings as the model for and an explanation of the similar fate that befalls Judah according to the one presented in Jeremiah. Fifteen years after the publication of Auld's book "Kings Without Privilege", it could be concluded that his theory of a shared Vorlage has generAuld, Kings Without Privilege, 144. Auld, Kings Without Privilege, 154.

28

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

ally not been accepted by the scholarly community. I will adduce some important critical observations of Williamson and Knoppers, although the discussion on this has been broader. Williamson, in his review of the monograph, mentions three main reasons for Auld's failure to convince scholars of the plausibility of his theory: Some places in Chronicles seem to presuppose knowledge not just of the shared material with Kings, but of the developed form of Kings. S.L. McKenzie presents eight examples which show that the Chronicler was familiar with and worked with the Former Prophets, more or less in their present form. 74 1 will confine myself, however, to three points mentioned by Williamson in his review of Auld's "Kings without Privilege": (A) The text of 1 Kings 12:15//2Chron 10:15, which is included in the shared text, refers back to 1 Kings 11:29-39 without parallel in Chronicles and therefore, unlike the former, is not part of the shared text. There have been two ways of explaining the presence of 2 Chron 10:15 as unattached in its context: either as a careless oversight, or as a place where the Chronicler assumes knowledge of his Kings Vorlage. To be consistent with his own theory Auld must assume that this reference was unattached also in the original Vorlage of Kings, and explain the presence of 1 Kings 11:29-39 as a 'plus' added in order to fill this gap. However, this explanation does not seem likely when the regular prophecy-fulfilment scheme in Kings is considered. (B) 2 Chron 22:7-9 is based on 2 Kings 9:1-28 and 10:12-14. Chron's text is abbreviated and there are also some differences in presentation if compared to Kings, but all that could easily be explained by the Chronicler's own ideology as it is presented in the commentaries of Williamson, Dillard and Japhet. Auld's reconstructed shared text is here even further abbreviated and thus e.g. the comment that "he sent out with Jehoram to Jehu son of Nimshi" is basically meaningless for those who have no possibility of knowing the fuller account in 2 Kings 9-10. (C) Sennacherib's invasion depicted in 2 Chron 32 is more likely to be explained as a harmonizing conflation of 2 Kings 18-19 than as an independent expansion in Kings and Chronicles respectively of an even shorter common text. 1 Kings 8 and the first part of 1 Kings 9 are decidedly Deuteronomic, but, at the same time, they are a part of the shared Vorlage reconstructed by Auld despite the fact that he denies its Deuteronomistic nature. These texts indeed stand out as distinct within Auld's reconstructed source, and they can be plausibly explained by the traditional view that they draw upon

S.L. McKenzie, "The Chronicler as Redactor", in M.P. Graham/S.L. McKenzie (ed.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture (JSOTSup 263; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 70-90, on pp. 82-5.

Introduction

29

Deuteronomy rather than on the view that Deuteronomy is a later creation and its author has been influenced by them, as Auld assumes.75 The death of Saul without any form of wider introduction is not a very convincing opening for a common source text. 76 Knoppers, in his review of Auld's monograph,77 observes: If the focus of the common source was the history of Judah, it is unclear why its author details Jeroboam's sins (1 Kings 12:25-33), which pertain only to the course of the northern history. For a similar reason it is unclear why its author follows the order of Kings by placing certain events, such as the alliance between Jehoshaphat and Ahab (1 Kings 22:1-38) before his account of Jehoshaphat's reign (2 Kings 22:41-50) instead of incorporating this incident into the context of Jehoshaphat's reign (2 Chron 17-20).

There also is a problem with Auld's view that the function of the material about the Northern Kingdom in Kings only serves as a mirror through which the author's southern audience may view itself and shudder.78 Knoppers rightly comments: That might warrant addition of a few stories, but it seems implausible that a postexilic Judean writer would add an immense amount of material about the longdefunct northern monarchy, approximately three quarters of the coverage within 1 Kings 12-2 Kings 17, for such a purpose.

It is also quite unlikely that the Chronicler was unaware of the material about the Northern Kingdom. As an example one could take the text of 2 Chron 13:4-12 which reflects on the division of the kingdom and its consequences. Auld claims that this text only assumes knowledge of 1 Kings 12:25-33, but 1 Kings 13:33 and perhaps 2 Kings 17:32 should also be considered. In order to support the credibility of the assumption that both Sam-Kings and Chronicles are post-exilic compositions based on the common Vorlage, Auld downplays the importance of the difference between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew for dating these texts. However, as Knoppers points out, scholars like A. Kropat, E. Kutscher, R. Polzin, A. Hurvitz, and M. Rooker have convincingly argued for the different stages of Hebrew in the Biblical text, and their evidence should not be discounted in any dating of biblical texts.

H.G.M. Williamson, "Book of the Month. Mirror Images", The Expository Times 117 (2005) 19-21, on p. 20; McKenzie, "The Chronicler as Redactor", 85-6. 76 Williamson, "Book of the Month", 20; McKenzie, "The Chronicler as Redactor", 81-2. 77 G.N. Knoppers, "Review of A. G. Auld, Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible's Kings." Ashland Theological Journal 27 (1995), 118—21. 78 Cf. Auld, Kings Without Privilege, 172.

30

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

1.3.2. Methodology and structure The above-listed critical observations show that there are fundamental problems with Auld's restored Vorlage, and that mainstream scholarship, claiming that that the narrative part of Chronicles was written as an elaboration on Sam-Kings still offers a better explanation of the given evidence. In Chapter Two I will follow the accepted path, but will at the same time study the composition of Chronicles as an expansion of the dynastic promise which is thus viewed as a kernel of the whole book. The following brief sketch of events presented in Chronicles aims to justify this approach: 1 Chron 1-9, is concerned with genealogical material, and provides Judah, from which the chosen dynasty proceeds, and Levi, the tribe intrinsically connected to the sanctuary and the one with the longest genealogies. Similarly, the narrative part of the book emphasizes ruler-sanctuary relations which, in fact, form the backbone of the entire text. The secular and religious concerns of the kings are complementary, and the righteous, pious kings are presented as uniquely connected with the Temple. The most prominent of these kings are David, the king and founder of the temple cult, and his son Solomon, through whom the preparatory activity is materialised. Although the story of the monarchy in Israel starts with the reign of Saul, the narrative unity with the following text concerned with David's coronation makes it clear that, for the Chronicler, Saul's reign is an introduction to and an explanation of the choseness of David. Here we must mention in anticipation that the kingships of David and Solomon form a unity, thus also projecting the choseness of David on Solomon. On this basis the pericope concerned with Saul in 1 Chron 10 can be understood as a contrast to the choseness of both David and Solomon. According to the dynastic promise the mission of David's kingship is not fully completed before the building of the Temple by Solomon, and it is exactly this occasion when YHWH promises to Solomon that He will not withdraw His steadfast love (ЮГ!) from him as He did to Saul. The textual presence of Saul's failure and death as the only historical record of his reign which precedes that of David-Solomon, can reasonably be explained if seen as an expansion of the dynastic promise where only Saul's failure is mentioned. For the Chronicler, who considered the institution of the Davidic monarchy as predestined to Israel (cf. Chapter 3.2 and 3.3), it is necessary to show that, although historically the monarchy started with the reign of Saul, it is not until the reign of David, the founder of the eponymous dynasty, that the prom-

Introduction

31

ise of an everlasting dynasty was pronounced.79 Consequently, the whole genealogical complex linked to Saul's story is presented as an introduction to the story of the Davidic dynasty, and not to the reign of Saul himself The story of the Davidic dynasty is, in turn, centred on the pronouncement of the promise of an everlasting kingdom for David in 1 Chron 17:7-14. The proper story of David begins with the statement of 1 Chron 10:14b: ' t f ' - p TH*? ЛЭЧ^йТГПХ DCI (and [YHWH] turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse) which is further developed through the anointing of David and his conquest of Jerusalem. These are depicted as the two successive events which inaugurate David's reign with the involvement of "all Israel". The lists of people gathering to David from different parts of Israel (1 Chron 11:10-12:41) constitutes a part of the King's coronation in the text of Chronicles. Together with the following narration, up to 1 Chron 17, it forms the block characteristic in an alternation of the secular (1 Chron 11-12; 14) and religious (1 Chron 13:1-14; 15-16) concerns of the king.80 The text after 1 Chron 17 up to 1 Chron 22 applies the same method of alternation, but here the military concern of the King serves to create the necessary political conditions for the building of the Temple.81 In the religious sphere, the preparatory activity of David continues above all in the organization of the Temple personnel (1 Chron 23-27) and in the transfer of the Temple plan (ГРЗПП) to his successor (1 Chron 28:11-19). The Temple is built and inaugurated by Solomon who is depicted as an image of perfection, unlike his portrayal in Kings. All of Solomon's efforts are thus exclusively directed towards the Temple. After his death the monarchy is divided and the 'story' of the Temple within the history of the Davidic dynasty is traced until its ultimate destruction by the Babylonians. The presentation of events in Chronicles roughly follows the contours of the dynastic promise: Saul's story is only narrated to the extent that it corresponds with the statement in 1 Chron 17:13. Only David is presented as a king of "all Israel" as it is assumed in the dynastic promise. The interconnection of religious and secular spheres in the narration and David and Solomon's intimate connection with the Ark and Temple corresponds to the great emphasis on the unity of Palace and Temple in the Chronicler's verT. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT 106; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 169, understands the depiction of Saul's death in 1 Chron 10 as a result of its implicit reference in the dynastic promise (1 Chron 17:13). It is certainly important for the Chronicler to show the everlasting nature of David's kingdom as opposed to the temporary character of the kingdom of Saul. Together with other links to the dynastic promise, the Chronicler's intent points to its programmatic nature for the whole text. 80 David's concern for the Ark could be viewed as the first stage of his preparatory activity for the Temple, cf. S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989), 226. 81 Williamson, Chronicles, 135.

32

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

sion of the dynastic promise. The omission of the phrase "when he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings" (cf. 2 Sam 7:14) from the Chronicler's version of the dynastic promise, does not allow for Solomon's failure - a failure which is also reflected in the narration where he is uniquely presented as an ideal figure.82 Finally, 1 Chron 17:14 where YHWH states "I will confirm him (Solomon) in my house and in my kingdom forever" again differs from its Dtr Vorlage (cf. 2 Sam 7:16) and corresponds with the narrative parts which refer to David and Solomon as sitting on the throne of YHWH (cf. 1 Chron 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron 9:8). In this last case we cannot be entirely confident about the interpretative tendency in the Chronicler's version of the dynastic promise.83 It is important to note that all the above-mentioned links which connect the narration with the dynastic promise correspond to those issues in which the Chronicler is unique if compared to Sam-Kings. The natural explanation for all these pieces of evidence would be that the Chronicler's portrayal of the history of the monarchy is indeed intended as an expansion on the dynastic promise. Not all scholars agree that the dynastic promise plays a central role in Chronicles. S. Japhet presents a different view in her already classic monograph. She writes: 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".84

Japhet's conclusion is here not fully consistent with her own view that the composition of Chronicles represents basic unity and a coherent theological system. If the content of Nathan's prophecy is in some other places in Chronicles described by the same author as the Davidic covenant, it cannot be regarded as a different issue, but as an explanation of the former. In other words, even if the dynastic promise in 1 Chron 17 is not explicitly referred to as a covenant, we know that it is regarded as such by the Chronicler, and thus there is no point in drawing a distinction between this text on the one hand and texts with an explicit reference to the covenant with David on the other hand. Given this, the number of references to the Davidic covenant in Chronicles increases from only two places named by

82 Cf. R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen burg: Herder, 1973), 90. 83 Cf. McKenzie, Chronicler's Use, 64; see p. 108 η. 6 84 Japhet, Ideology, 497.

Geschichtswerkes

(Frei-

Introduction

33

Japhet (2 Chron 13:5 and 21:7)85 to six others, namely: 1 Chron 17:10-14; 22:6-13; 28:2-10; 2 Chron 7:18s6; 13:8; 23:3.87 Moreover, if we take into consideration the method outlined above regarding the manner in which the Chronicler shapes his narration according to the lines of the dynastic promise, her claim remains unfounded. There is a variety of ways to approach Palace-Temple relations in Chronicles. In light of the considerations presented above, I will attempt to argue that the relations between the two institutions are fundamental to our understanding of the book and any interpretation of Chronicles should therefore depart from this point. My elaboration on the theme is provided by an exegesis of Chronicles as a single corpus, the theology of which interacts with the preceding and contemporary Judaic traditions. The following four chapters are designed to elucidate Chronicles from this perspective. These chapters will be followed by a final conclusion which is nevertheless not a simple summary of everything which precedes it. The conclusion applies the results of the previous analysis, but also places these results against the wider context of their contemporary theological environment. Chapter Two tackles the general composition of the book. This is essential to our understanding of the Chronicler's handling of the crucial problem of King-Temple relations, and to our evaluation of whether his work is merely an actualization of past history or may bear some relevance for the future. The text is structured according to the individual issues contained in the dynastic promise, since the whole corpus of 1 - 2 Chronicles is viewed as its expansion. The dynastic promise is traced back to Adam, the first man, thus evincing the universal character of the Davidic dynasty; an important element in the Chronicler's theology - an issue which is examined in greater detail in the following chapter. The nature of kingship in this book differs from that of Deuteronomy (Law of the King) as well as from that of Dtr, thus calling for a closer study of this problem. Chapter Three is focuses in greater detail on the 'Law of the King' (Deut 17:14-20). The Chronicler is strongly influenced by Deuteronomy and makes a considerable use of it in his narrative.88 Regarding the centrality of the kingship to his work it is unlikely that he does not allude to Deut 17:14-20 in any way, even if his approach is considerably different from that found in Deuteronomy. Through the 'Law of the King' the approach to Dtr and the pre-exilic Davidic tradition is traced as well, thus leading to the 85

Japhet, Ideology, 453-54. In this particular case Japhet admits that this may eventually be listed among the passages which mention the covenant with David, cf. Japhet, Ideology, 453 n. 26. 87 Cf. Kelly, Retribution, 147 n.26. 88 Cf. G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (BWANT 54; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930). 86

34

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

evaluation of a universalistic dimension inherent in Chronicles. Of special importance is the examining of the relation between David and Moses, enabling us to better understand how the Chronicler views the cultic function of David and Solomon. The second chapter already displays David as closely connected with the Psalm tradition. This suggests the affiliation of the Chronicler with the circles involved in the final editorial activity of the Psalter, thus promoting a more detailed study of the Psalm tradition, which will be dealt with in following chapter. Chapter Four examines the role of the Psalm tradition in Chronicles, but also in the context of the shaping of Psalter which must have taken place in the Persian period. If this is placed against the composition of Chronicles as presented in Chapter Two, interesting facts emerge regarding the variety of theological approaches within the otherwise close circles of the Temple Scribes. The fifth chapter is still a response to the second as it traces the Davidic tradition within the prophetic corpus of the exilic and post-exilic periods. The Chronicler, who is very much preoccupied with the everlasting promise for the Davidic dynasty, could not be isolated from this context. The exegesis of certain texts reveals their close connection with Chronicles on the one hand, but their different attitude to Palace-Temple relations on the other. Chapter Six is the conclusion. As aforementioned, it is a summary of the previous study as well as a setting of its results into the framework of a wider theological background which is, presumably, contemporary to the Chronicler. This is essential for any attempt to define why Chronicles was written and determine the original scope of its composition. In the conclusion I will attempt to answer both questions.

2. The composition of Chronicles: the history of Israel's monarchy examined through Ruler-Sanctuary relations

As suggested in the previous paragraph (cf. Chapter 1.3.2), the dynastic promise constitutes the core of Chronicles and any interpretation of the book should depart from this particular point. The Palace-Temple relations in the Chronicler's version of the dynastic promise are strengthened by the change of ГЛГР ΓΡΠ (2 Sam 7:11) to ΠΊΠ1 Ч^-ПЗТ ГРЗ (1 Chron 17:10) when the dynasty is mentioned.1 In connection with ГРЗ ^ " Л З Т Х1П in which the building of the Temple by Solomon is announced (v. 12) and by the deliberately ambiguous use o f r P 3 in v. 14, an intrinsic link between the Davidic dynasty and the Temple is made explicit. There are two basic issues proclaimed by Nathan in the oracle about the everlasting dynasty and others which are directly connected with them: David is • • •

taken from following the sheep to be a ruler over Israel YHWH fights for David in the wars with his enemies YHWH will give to David a name like that of the greatest YHWH will give Israel a peaceful dwelling place and protect it by subduing all of David's enemies

YHWH will build a house (dynasty) for David • One of David's sons will build a house (temple) for YHWH. • David's throne will be established forever in YHWH's kingdom • YHWH will be David's father and David will be YHWH's son • YHWH's mercy will not be taken from David as it was taken from Saul.

Cf. Japhet, I&II Chronicles, 333.

36

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

2.1 David was taken from following the sheep to be a ruler over Israel As already mentioned, the narrative text directly concerned with the reign of David starts at 1 Chron 10:14b: Therefore the LORD put him to death and turned (SD'I) the kingdom over to David son of Jesse.

The preceding story of Saul's failure is an expansion on the remark in the dynastic promise that YHWH takes away His "ΤΟΠ from Saul (1 Chron 17:13): I will not take my steadfast love (ΤΟΠ) from him (Solomon), as I took it from him who was before you.

There is no narrative break between the story of Saul's failure and the beginning of David's rule, but, on the other hand, the joint-word - ΠΟ'Ί connecting these two different reigns, makes it clear that the rule of David does not naturally arise from the rule of Saul. This feature becomes more comprehensible if set against the message of the dynastic promise. There, the dynasty (iT'D) promised to David (1 Chron 17:10) and affirmed as everlasting during the reign of Solomon the Temple Builder (17:12) is meant as a new beginning following the reign of Saul who is deprived of dynastic succession (17:13). In other words, there is succession but not continuity in the reigns of Saul and David, and this is also the actual meaning of the transitional word ΠΟ'Ί in 1 Chron 10:14b.2 The following introductory narration about David is structured around two important issues: (1) David becomes king over all of Israel (1 Chron 11:1-3). (2) Although he is crowned in Hebron, David inaugurates his reign by marching with all of Israel to Jerusalem in order to conquer it (1 Chron 11:4-9).

The semantic affiliation of the present meaning of ЭЭ0 - as is also attested to in 1 Chron 12:24 (ET 12:23); 2 Chron 10:15//1 Kings 12:15; 1 Kings 2:15 - with the Sumerian bala (noun of the verbal root bal 'to turn over, around, against'), Akkadian palü, wich is borrowed from the aforementioned Sumerian bala and the Arabic dawla, has been noted by P. Machinist, "The Transfer of Kingship: A Divine Turning", in A.B. Beck et al. (ed.), Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 105-120. He notes that the similarities in these terms are to "be explained as separate, parallel developments, independent realizations of a notion and imagery that one could naturally infer from human experience in many places and circumstances. Still, the similarities between these three sets of terms are close and more particular. They are, for example, a 'wheel of human fortune', or a general 'turning (over)' of events, people or property, but specifically a 'turning/rotation of political rule' from one holder to another governed by divine will", 120.

Composition in Chronicles

37

Both instances are created by the intentional editing of the Vorlage of 2 Sam. In the first case, the author achieves his goal by omitting the part of 2 Sam 1 - 4 where after the death of Saul David is only crowned king over Judah while Ishboshet rules over northern Israel (cf. 2 Sam 2:10). The second point is connected with the first: the Chronicler omits the parenthetic 2 Sam 5:4-5, which interrupts the narrative flow between 2 Sam 5:3 and 5:6, connecting David's anointing with his conquering of Jerusalem.3 (2Sam 5:6) П^ШТР VttftXI n x irrafo'i

"ft"1 1 ... (2 Sam 5:3)

Ι^ΖΛ

TIT

"and they anointed David king over Israel ... the king and his men marched to Jerusalem".

The anointing of David as king over Israel in 1 Chron 11:1-3 provides an explicit link to 1 Chron 17:7: Thus says the LORD of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people Israel.

The narrative expansion runs until 1 Chron 11:9 and then continues from 11:10 up to 12:41. Unlike 1 Sam 16:13, which depicts David's anointing as a 'secret matter' in the presence of his brothers (ΊΤΙΝ taking place during the reign of Saul, Chronicles completely separates it from Saul's reign, and David is anointed when all Israel gathers around him in Hebron (Л3113Л T I T ^ X V x n i y - V D ЧХЗрИ) (1 C h r o n 11:1). A s previously noted,

the first block (11:1-9) forms a narrative unity which binds the enthronement of David with the conquest of Jerusalem. The next block (11:10-12:41) is introduced and separated from the previous narration by the heading: T r t W X ППЗДЛ 1S0Q nVxl ... T r t W X ПЩЗДЛ ' t f m (11:10-11).

The text under this heading lists David's mighty men who are with him in Hebron (11:11-47). Chapter 12 continues with the naming of David's men who come to him at Ziklag (12:1-8), those of Gad who come to him in the stronghold (12:9-16), those of Judah and Benjamin who come to him in the stronghold (12:17-19), those of Manasseh who come to Ziklag (12:20-23), and finally, the divisions of the armed troops who come to Hebron (12:24-39).4

The information about the length of David's rule in Hebron in 2 Sam 5:5 is not entirely omitted from Chronicles, but is transferred to the genealogical section (1 Chron 3:4b), cf. Kalimi, Reshaping, 20. 4 As noted by Williamson, Chronicles, 105, the material is arranged in a chiastic structure according to geographical indications.

38

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

All this is concluded with the author's comment that there is a celebration on the occasion of David's coronation in Hebron. This text provides a powerful image of "all Israel" united by David - people gather from across the country, all of them united in their wish to make David king and all are joyous at the occasion. In Chronicles David's rule over "all Israel" is enhanced by the omission of the preceding seven-year rule when he rules over Judah alone.5 The coronation and reign of David depicted in the narrative section should be seen in the context of the genealogies in 1 Chron 1-9, as there is no reason to doubt a basic unity of the genealogical and narrative blocks (cf. Chapter 1.3). It has already been observed that the genealogical material of Judah, together with that of Levi, is longer than the genealogies of the other tribes of Israel. Among the descendants of Judah, a prominent place is given to David. His progeny is placed in the middle of the Judahite genealogy, which is thus interrupted, and is then traced several generations after Zerubbabel into the time of the author.6 It should be noted that the list of David's ancestors in 1 Chron 2:10-17 has the form of a linear pedigree tracing only one line of descent. This form is used to provide prominent individuals with a pedigree, as in 1 Chron 7:20-1, 25-7 and Ezra 7:1-5, or to enumerate the names of those who hold important offices (the Judean kings in 1 Chron 3:10-16, the priests and Levites 1 Chron 5:27-38). 7 Another issue of importance is that the Davidides, named in 1 Chron 3, who become monarchs, are not privileged over the later ones, who do not. As noted by Knoppers, exilic and post-exilic figures thus share the same honourable status as pre-exilic ones.8 What is implicitly stated by such an elaboration is the hope that "as long as a prominent line survives the ravages of history, its members and supporters are always free to hope for better times".9 The importance of David is already made explicit in 1 Chron 2, where the genealogy of Judah is given over to the descendants of Hezron. The Japhet, Chronicles, 236-238. The Hebrew text of the genealogical record after Zerubbabel is difficult and there is no unanimous agreement as to how it should be interpreted. The LXX, in addition to the other ancient versions, offers an easier reading, but it is a question whether the principle lectio difficilior lectio probabilior should be applied in this particular case. The MT version is not fully explicable as it stands and the most difficult part in 3:21could be solved by the interchange of ' 3 3 for 133 which is assumed behind υ'ιός αύτοΰ in the LXX. It is quite possible that the LXX at the same time preserves an easier and a more original reading. Yet, we must still ask whether "his son Rephaiah, his son Arnan, his son Obadiah, his son Shecaniah" are all to be understood as sons of Hananiah, or rather as the generations which follow him. 7 Johnson, Purpose, 11. 8 G.N. Knoppers, "The Davidic Genealogy: Some Contextual Considerations from the Ancient Mediterranean World", Trans 22 (2001) 35-50, on p. 46. 9 Knoppers, "Davidic Genealogy", 50. 6

Composition in Chronicles

39

three branches which stem from Hezron, those of Jerahmeel, Ram and Chelubai, are of particular interest to the Chronicler, despite the fact that the branches of Jerahmeel and Chelubai can be traced back to non-Israelites. This approach is attributed by Johnson to the desire of the author to demonstrate that a large part of the restoration community is Davidic.10 As with the non-Israeli genealogies - Egypt, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, or Greece it aims not only to compile traditional material, but also to make assertions about present identities. In 1 Chron 2 the genealogy reveals a striking tolerance in the approach to intermarriage with other nations, an act which is so forcefully banned by Ezra and Nehemiah. The composition of genealogies, as described above, reveals a hierarchy which is in accordance with the narrative section which follows it. The tribes of Judah and David have a prominent position in Israel. This has a parallel in the narrative section in 1 Chron 28:4 where David himself is addressing all the princes of Israel: Yet the YHWH 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 (1 Chron 28:4).

Accordingly, Judah is first to be discussed in the genealogical material (1 Chron 2:3-4:23) and only after that branch are the other tribes treated.11 However, in 1 Chron 5:3 it is admitted that Reuben, and not Judah, is the firstborn of Israel, which is explained by means of the midrashic technique in the w . lb-2. 12 The fact that the genealogies are traced to the first man reveals the attribution of an element of universalism to the rule of the Davidic dynasty. As in the Priestly strand of the Pentateuch, the sanctuary is connected through the genealogical material to the creation of the world.13 In Chronicles, the dynasty of David, to whom the building of the Temple is entrusted, is connected through genealogies to the origins and history of mankind. The ideology of this approach is telling: the rule of David-Solomon embraces the whole of mankind, for the God-creator to whom all belongs (1 Chron 29:11) dwells in the sanctuary (the plan of which is only revealed to David)

Johnson, Purpose, 70. G.N. Knoppers, "Intermariage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of Judah", JBL 120 (2001) 15-36, on p. 16. 12 S. Japhet, I&II Chronicles (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1993), 132-33; cf. Williamson, Israel, 89-95. 13 J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1992), 217-20. 11

40

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

(1 Chron 28:11-19), and which is later built by his son (2 Chron 3-5). 14 This ideology is also approached by the Chronicler from a different angle, namely, in the pericope of the Josiah's death (2 Chron 35:20-27), resulting from a failure to obey the words received from the Egyptian king (which he, in turn, received from YHWH). This reveals the 'Deutero-Isaianic' line of thinking in which Cyrus is designated as YHWH's anointed (Isa 45:1). In these texts the idea of a universal reign of YHWH is eminently present. Although smaller and weaker compared to the other empires of the world, Israel is protected by God who rules over the history of the world, but, on the other hand, in case of Israel's disobedience other empires can be used by God against it as a punishment. The first theologoumenon - about divine protection - can be inferred from the wars won only thanks to the direct intervention of YHWH (2 Chron 13:13-20; 14:8-14; 20:1, 29) while the other one - about punishment - is best attested to in the theological reasoning of the exile (cf. 2 Chron 36). A similar approach is discernible in Jer 25:9; 27:6; 43:10 where Jeremiah refers to Nebuchadnezzar as YHWH's servant - a title which is otherwise only attached to David (Jer 33:21, 22, 26) and to a collective meaning of Jacob as the nation of Israel (Jer 30, 10; 46:27, 28). The issues related to the appointment of David as king over Israel in the dynastic promise - YHWH fights for David in his wars with his enemies; YHWH will give David a name like the names of the great men on the earth; YHWH will ordain a peaceful dwelling place for Israel and protect it by subduing all David's enemies; YHWH will build a house (dynasty) for David - are not directly linked to the sanctuary. On the other hand, the narrative text which is composed as an expansion of the dynastic promise intertwines secular and religious concerns. Secular and religious motifs are thus alternating: David as King of Israel is placed between the blocks concerned with the Ark of Covenant - before the dynastic promise, and: David's prayer and preparations for the Temple - after the dynastic promise. Thus we find 1 Chron 14:1-17 between the two stages of the transferring of the Ark to Jerusalem, unlike in the underlying 2 Sam 5 where the same text is placed as one unit with the text that in 1 Chron is already found in 11:1-9. Such an interruption of the original sequence of the Vorlage of 2 Sam 5, providing another context for the text found in 1 Chron 14:1-17, is purposeful. After the building of a house for David by Hiram, king of Tyre,

14 The manner in which Chronicles begin: "Adam, Seth, Enosh ..." is unique in the Hebrew Bible. No other book begins in such a manner, without any introduction, but only with the bare naming of ancestors. The form used here is more reminiscent of the beginning of the ANE kinglists.

Composition in Chronicles

41

and after the double victory over the Philistines, the Chronicler adds his own concluding remark: The fame of David ("PlVOtC") went out in all lands; and the YHWH brought the fear of him upon all nations" (14:17).

In the text of the dynastic promise it corresponds to: I will make for you a name (•!£>') like a name of great ones of the earth (1 Chron 17:8b).

The liturgy connected to the transferring of the Ark to Zion (16:1-36) is linked, among others, to ideas about YHWH as the Creator and King, to his supreme judgment and to the idea of Israel as his chosen nation. The elevated status of David in the international scene, as described in 1 Chron 14:17, provides an appropriate setting for the text which follows. The verse functions as a joint-text since it could be considered both as a summary of what is stated before and as an introduction to that which follows it. In other words, establishing the international reputation of David is for the author the aim of the preceding narrative, but at the same time constitutes the presupposition for the following text. On the occasion of the bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem, we find King David involved in cultic activities normally reserved for priests: wearing a linen ephod (15:27), offering burnt and piece offerings and blessing the people in the name of YHWH (16:2-3). There is no reason to doubt the intention of the Chronicler to keep David's status of a king-priest without diminishing it against his Vorlage in 2 Sam 6. These actions make it unlikely that the reading of 1 Chron 18:17 Π^ΏΠ Τ 1 ? ЕП^'ХПП TVT-,»3m "David's sons were the chief officials in the service of the king") is an intentional transition from the original 2 Sam 8:18 (ΊΤΙ •''ЗПЭ "ΤTT 'DDI "and David's sons were priests") aiming to avoid the mentioning of the sons of David as priests. In fact, the complexity of the text-critical evidence offers other possibilities for explainng the given text without assuming its intentional emendation by the Chronicler. Cody suggested that the Hebrew Vorlage of 2 Sam 8:18 contained the word ПЧЭО which was translated into Greek by αϋλάρχαι.15 Following Begrich16 Cody further argues that the title p O which was used for the office of the man "who-is-over-the-house" was at first the lowest office in the royal cabinet, but grew in importance until, toward the end of the monarchy, it was found occasionally even in the hands of king's son (cf. 2 Kings 15:5). Isa 22:15 which was composed during the later monarchy uses A. Cody, A History of the Old Testament Priesthood (AnBib 35; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 104-5. 16 Cf. J. Begrich, "Söfer und Mazlär", ZAW58 (1940/41) 1-29, on pp. 26-9.

42

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

p O as the title of an important personage in the kingdom and means something more than "steward". Thus the title could be used for the king's sons only at a later date, corresponding with the time when theological objections to the priesthood of David's sons arose. Cody therefore argues that the rendering of the LXX already reflects an ideological emendation of its Hebrew Vorlage where the term П'ЗПЭ was replaced by D13D0.17 In such a case the Chronicler's Vorlage would have already contained the reading П'ЗЭО which he did not simply transcribe, but set in a descriptive manner as: Ι^ΏΠ Τ*? Cody's considerations thus make the Chronicler's interpretative tendencies redundant here. Wenham argues that there are strong text-critical indications pointing towards the word П'ЗПЭ resulting from a copyist's misreading. On the one hand, he agrees with Cody that D13D0 underlies αύλάρχαι of the LXX, but, on the other hand, suggests that in the process of transmition D13D0 was changed to П'ЗПЭ, and not vice versa.18 Furthermore, as already mentioned, for Wenham the change is accidental and has not been inserted for a theological reason as argued by Cody. For Wenham, the original reading of p O reflects the function of Shebna who was both p O and "over the house" (cf. Isa 22:15). The same meaning is found at least in one of the Ugaritic texts, and correspondence may also be found with akk. saknu, which is the title of a high-ranking official. As supporting evidence, Wenham mentions 2 Kings 15:5, which records the situation following the death of Azariah, when his son Jotham was appointed "over the palace". Wenham suggests that this may be evidence to such a practice in the early days of the monarchy and proposes to translate the whole phrase as "And David's sons were administrators (of the royal estates)".19 If we accept it as a plausible proposal, we again witness a case where the LXX's Hebrew Vorlage, which is different from MT, should be taken as the one used by the Chronicler. Interpretative tendencies can thus be excluded in this case too. A more simple reconstruction of textual corruption is still suggested by Knoppers, who argues that the occurrence of П'ЗПЭ in 2 Sam 8:18 may have resulted from the recurrence of the same word in the previous v. 17.20 In line with the above-mentioned commentators he therefore views the rendering of the Chronicler as reflecting the original reading.

17

Cody, History, 105. According to Wenham the misreading could have been caused by a similarity of the consonants Π and D in the Paleo-Hebrew script which would lead to the mistaken form •'ЗЭП. Metathesis of the first two consonants which followed results in the reading П'ЗПЭ as is witnessed by the MT, cf. G.J. Wenham, "Were David's Sons Priests?", ZAW87 (1975) 79-82, on p. 81. 19 Wenham, "David's Sons", 81-2. 20 Knoppers, Chronicles, 706. 18

Composition in Chronicles

43

All of the adduced proposals show that the reading ПЧЛЭ in 2 Sam 8:18 was probably not a part of the Chronicler's Vorlage, and consequently that there is no need to ascribe a tendency to avoid priestly status of David's sons to the Chronicler. David's supreme authority over both civic and religious spheres is also apparent in the administrative structure of his kingdom (cf. 1 Chron 26:30-32), which will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.1. David charges his civil officials with royal matters as well as cultic ones, and his marks a radical change from the administration of Jehoshaphat during the time of the divided monarchy. Jehoshaphat appoints a separate priestly authority for religious affairs and a civic one for the affairs of the King (2 Chron 9:11), and the authorities of these two offices cannot be confused. The juxtaposition of the themes of the Ark and the Temple in 1 Chron 16 and 17, with direct continuation between them, suggests a deliberate attempt to stress their continuity. This is consistent with the intentional modification of the Dtr Vorlage in the Temple description of Chronicles (2 Chron 3:3-4:22, cf. 1 Kings 6-7), which brings in elements from the Ρ description of the tabernacle (cf. Exod 25-30). 21 As a consequence of the transferring of the Ark to Jerusalem there are two different cultic centres: Jerusalem with the Ark (ΓΠΓΡ~ΓΙΉΠ fllX) under the supervision of the Levites, and Gibeon with the tabernacle (ГЛГР pty'D) where burnt offerings were provided by Zadok and his priests.22 37 David left Asaph and his kinsfolk (ТПХ) there before the ark of the covenant of the LORD (тП , ~ПЛЭ |ПХ) to minister regularly before the ark as each day required, 38 and also Obed-edom and his sixty-eight kinsfolk; while Obed-edom son of Jeduthun and Hosah were to be gatekeepers. 39 And he left the priest Zadok and his kindred the priests (TTIXI) before the tabernacle of the LORD (ПИТ ptC'ü) in the high place that was at Gibeon, 40 to offer burnt offerings to the LORD on the altar of burnt offering regularly, morning and evening, according to all that is written in the law of the LORD that he commanded Israel (1 Chron 16:37-40).

Of course, the situation is later resolved through the construction of the Temple. However, as Knoppers observes, it is the story of David's census (1 Chron 21), i.e. his sin, which is the very seed of this unification. It is important to note at the same time that it is not so much David's sin, but his intercession and obedience on which the narrative of Chroniclers focuses if

J.van Seters, "The Chronicler's Account of Solomon's Temple Building: A Continuity Theme", in M.P. Graham/K.G. Hoglund/S.L. McKenzie (ed.), The Chronicler as Historian (JSOTSup 371; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 283-300. 22 According to the author, the Gibeon Sanctuary is perfectly legitimate by that time, as it is stated that offerings are provided according to the Law of YHWH (v. 40), cf. Knoppers, "Images of David", 464.

44

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

compared to the Vorlage of 2 Sam 24.23 David, the founder of the cult, is thus closely linked to David the penitential par excellence known from the Psalter tradition. This accords with Kalimi's remark that in the 'census pericope' there is a strong preference for identifying the King by his name - "David" - rather than designating him by title - "King" - which is found, on the other hand, in the narrative of 2 Sam.24 The most natural explanation for this is, again, an intentional stress on David as a model of personal piety rather than a king who fails to do justice.25 This may very well reflect the Jewish tradition of the Chronicler's time. Significantly, such a portrayal of David sheds a different light on the story's signification in the context of the narrative of Chronicles. It is not merely a validation of the threshing floor of Oman as the site of the Temple which is at stake, as considered by the majority of commentators.26 Moreover, David's mistake does not destroy his image as an ideal ruler. On the contrary, his subsequent acknowledgement of culpability serves as an example.27 David's penitent attitude is used, although not explicitly, in the programmatic text of 2 Chron 7:12b—15 - the text unique to Chronicles - in which both YHWH's dwelling in the Temple and the welfare of the nation are conditioned by repentance: I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for myself as a house of sacrifice. 13 When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, 14 if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land. 15 Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayer that is made in this place.

The most striking cases in which this principle is applied are the apology of the representatives of the Northern Kingdom during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chron 28:12-14) and the reward of Manasseh after he humbles himself before YHWH - both are unique to Chronicles. In the text 1 Chron 17:9-10, in the dynastic promise there is an assurance of a peaceful dwelling, the subduing of enemies, and, finally, the assurance of a dynasty. The subduing of enemies, with the consequence of the ripening of the political conditions necessary for temple building is the most likely aim of chapters 1 Chron 18-20, although it is not explicitly stated Knoppers, "Images of David", 462. Kalimi, Reshaping, 167-70. 25 Kalimi adduces other examples of this technique used by the Chronicler, each time with a different intention. Thus, for example, in the case of Joash there is an opposite tendency to use his title rather than the name, cf. Kalimi, Reshaping, 174-75, or by Pharaoh Neco who is again mentioned by name rather than title, cf. Kalimi, Reshaping, 111-79. 26 Knoppers, "Images of David", 451, with further references. 27 Knoppers, "Images of David", 469. 24

Composition in Chronicles

45

anywhere. 1 Chron 17:10 which refers to the 'subduing of enemies' is for the same reason changed against its Vorlage of 2 Sam 7 which refers to 'rest from enemies', as there is no mention that "YHWH gives David rest from all his enemies" (2 Sam 7:1) in 1 Chron 17:1.28 For the Chronicler David's reign is not a period of rest: David is not a man of peace and can therefore not build the Temple.29 In the narrative expansion of this part of the oracle David's inadequacy is given as an explanation for his inability to build the Temple: But the word of the YHWH 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 Chron 22:7-10).

This differs from the explanation of Dtr in which Solomon states the following: David my father could not build a house for the name of YHWH his God because of the warfare with which his enemies surrounded him (1 Kings 5:17-19).

A comparison of 1 Chron 22:7-10 and 1 Kings 5:17-19 suggests that the Chronicler puts a strong emphasis on the fact that peace is a conditio sine qua поп for the 'permission to build the Temple', not just for 'building the Temple'. In other words, while according to the interpretation of 1 Kings there simply are no favourable circumstances for David to generate such an activity, in Chronicles, apart from the circumstances, David is personally disqualified from building the Temple. This feature brings the figure of David very close to that of Moses in the sense that both, although for different reasons, are deprived, by YHWH's decision, from reaping the fruit of what they so carefully prepared. The fact that David is prevented from building the Temple is in Chronicles, unlike Dtr, directly linked to the succession of Solomon.30 The same observation can be made in the case of Moses in Deuteronomy where the ban from entering the 'promised land' is directly associated with the ap-

It is conceivable that, as was proposed by McKenzie, Chronicler's Use, 63, in this case it is not the text of Chronicles which omits the phrase, but rather the parallel text of MT Samuel which adds it, since we have a common Deuteronomistic idiom here. However, the text of 2 Sam 8, which immediately follows, shows that there is still no place for David's rest from enemies at this point in Israel's history and, therefore, the addition of such a phrase does not seem appropriate. P.K. McCarter, 2 Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 191, for this reason maintains that 2 Sam 7:1b is probably a marginal correction of v. l l a ß which later found its way into the text, but at the wrong point. 29 The link between cult and peace could be traced back to Deut 12:10-11 and in this form is close to 1 Kings 5:17-19, but not to 1 Chron 22:7-10. 30 H.G.M. Williamson, "The Accession of Solomon in the Book of Chronicles", VT 26 (1976) 351-61, on p. 351.

46

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

pointment of Joshua.31 Furthermore, it can be observed that the composition of 1 Chron 22 and 28 suggests a strong formal link to Deuteronomy. David's activity takes place during the last days of his life as is also the case with Moses in Deuteronomy. David assembles all Israel through its officials (1 Chron 28:1) and speaks to it in a manner similar to that of Moses when he addresses the nation of Israel (Deut 31:1-8). The characteristicallyDeuteronomic advice, given to Solomon and to all Israel respectively (1 Chron 22:13, 19; 28:8-9, 20), repeated during his speech, is reminiscent of the speech of Moses to Joshua32 and the rest of Israel. As noted by McCarthy, the sequence of 1 Chron 22 and 28 is structured according to the pattern of Deut 31 and Josh 1 and 13.33 The similarities are so obvious that the Chronicler's use of Joshua's commissioning as a model for the commissioning of Solomon is irrefutable. There are also several parallels which tie David with the Ρ portrayal of Moses. Most importantly, both Moses and David receive the plan (ГТ'ЗЗП) of the Temple directly from YHWH. The fact that the plan is outlined thus points to a parallel with Ezekiel (43:11), however the command-execution pattern (1 Chron 28:11-19; 2 Chron 3-4) corresponds to the pattern of Exodus (25:1-35:11; 35:4-40:33). 34 Another parallel is presented in the theme of freewill offerings which in Chronicles, and is again encountered in the text of Exodus (35:4-29) and is described in 1 Chron 29:1-9. We observe two different approaches to the people by Moses and David respectively. While Moses communicates freewill offerings as a divine command, David tries to persuade the people, while also providing a personal example.35

2.2 One of David's sons will build a house (temple) for Y H W H The transition of rule from David to Solomon is, in Chronicles, so smooth that it is not easy to detect where exactly Solomon's accession begins. His enthronement is presented as a culmination of David's preceding 'liturgy of thanksgiving' following the preparations for the building of the Temple, while the narrative flow passes fluently from one event to another. This 31

Williamson, "Accession", 351. For a definition of a 'formula of succession' see N. Lohfink, "Die Deuteronomische Darstellung der Übergangs des Führung Israels von Moses auf Josua", Scholastik Ъ1 (1962) 32-4; cf. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10-29, 784-8. 33 D.J. McCarthy, "An Installation Genre?", JBL 90 (1971) 31-41; Williamson, "Accession", 351-61. 34 Japhet, I&II Chronicles, 494. 35 Japhet, I&II Chronicles, 503. 32

Composition in Chronicles

47

blurred transition marks the close relations between David and Solomon on the one hand, and of the two kings with the Temple on the other. 20 Then David said to the whole assembly, "Bless the LORD your God." And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their ancestors, and bowed their heads and prostrated themselves before the LORD and the king С^йУ] ΠΙΠ^ ΠΠη^'Ί). 21 On the next day (Χ1ΠΠ ПТТ! ГЛПЙ^) they offered sacrifices and burnt offerings to the LORD, a thousand bulls, a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs, with their libations, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel; 22 and they ate and drank before the LORD on that day with great joy. They made David's son Solomon king a second time; they anointed him as the LORD'S prince, and Zadok as priest (1 Chron 29:20-22).

There are two different options as to where a beginning of the account of Solomon's enthronement should be delimited: at 1 Chron 29:20,36 or at the following v. 21.37 The petucha after v. 19 suggests that the ancient scribes favoured the beginning at v. 20. The related question which necessarily emerges in this context is whether the king in v. 20b - l^aVl mm 1 ? n n r W n "prostrated themselves before the LORD and the king" - is to be identified as David or Solomon. If the enthronement of Solomon is meant to be narrated from 29:20 as petuHah suggests then the abovementioned king can indeed be Solomon.38 In such case, as De Vries believes, v. 22 - "they ate and drank before the LORD on that day (XIЛ Л DTD) with great joy" - is most likely intended to sum up the previous w . 20-21, with Х1ЛЛ DTD serving as the mark of a climax and not as an indication of time.39 If, on the other hand, the phrase χίπη птл Γ Π Π Ζ Λ ' 'on the next day" in v. 21 serves as a marker for a demarcation then that king is to be read as David. A prostration "before YHWH and the king" at the cultic occasion ("I^Vl ГПЛ,17 ПППип) in v. 20 can only be understood against the Chronicler's view that both David For example Williamson, Chronicles, 186; R. Braun, 1 Chronicles, (WBC 14; Waco, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1986), 289; Knoppers, Chronicles 10-29, 944; Kalimi, Reshaping, 286. Braun, 1 Chronicles, 289, referring to the study of J. Rothstein/J. Hänel, Das erste Buch der Chronik (ΚΑΤ; Leipzig: A. Dietertsche, 1927), argues that there are exact links between the Chronicler's depiction of Solomon's coronation and the last part of the Succession Document in Kings 1-2. He argues, therefore, that 1 Chron 29:20 corresponds to the wish of Benaiah in 1 Kings 1:36-37, and belongs to the narration about Solomon rather than David. The two texts are, however, so different that such an argumentation remains forced. De Vries argues in favor of the demarcation of Solomon's investiture at 1 Chron 29:20, in which the sacrificial preparation in vv. 20—21ак is followed by an actual coronation starting with χίπη nrn mnaV mn'V mVv "On the next day they offered sacrifices to the LORD", cf. S.J. de Vries, I and II Chronicles (FOTL; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 223. 37 W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT 21; Tübingen: Mohr, 1955), 192; Japhet, I&II Chronicles, 503. 38 Braun, Chronicles, 290. 39 S.J. de Vries, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Time and History in the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1975), 116.

48

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

and Solomon are sitting on the throne of YHWH (1 Chron 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron 9:8). The whole pericope dealing with the coronation of Solomon may therefore serve as an example for a deliberately ambiguous text which aims to present the reign of David and Solomon as a single unit. This intentional ambiguity may also be the reason why 1 Chron 29:26-30, containing the concluding remarks about David, are parenthetically inserted into the narration of the inception of Solomon's reign and not before that. The story of Solomon, interrupted at 1 Chron 29:25, then starts again with a 'resumptive repetition' at 2 Chron 1:1,40 and continues with his journey to Gibeon. A unity of the kingship of David and Solomon, as noted by Plögcr4 and elaborated on by Braun42 and Williamson,43 is indeed an essential issue within the theology of Chronicles. The topic is entirely connected to their presentation according to the pattern of the Moses-Joshua relations referred to in the previous paragraph. Solomon is presented in Chronicles as a chosen Temple Builder on the one hand, but also as one who is unable to accomplish the given task without the preparations of David (cf. 1 Chron 22:5; 29:l-9). 44 Williamson puts forward several examples in which the regimes of David and Solomon are intrinsically linked: David prepares a site for the Temple (1 Chron 22:1 cf. 2 Chron 3:1), oversees the initial organization of workmen for its construction (1 Chron 22:2, 15 cf. 2 Chron 2:6, 14, 16), provides materials (1 Chron 18:8; 22:3-4, 14, 16; 29:2-9 cf. 2 Chron 5:1) and the pattern for the buildings, priesthood and vessels (1 Chron 28:11-12, 13a, 13b—18). It is enough to see that David's mission is incomplete without Solomon's, and Solomon's is, in turn, impossible without that of David. Both are essential to Israel's history since they are both viewed as the founders of the Temple. All this reveals how central the cohesion of the Palace and the Temple is in the Chronicler's portrayal of their kingship. According to the dynastic promise, David is chosen by YHWH as the founder of the dynasty (1 Chron 17:10), while Solomon is chosen to be king - the Temple Builder. Only in Solomon's reign, in connection with the Temple, the promise of an everlasting dynasty is announced. The perpetuity of the dynasty is thus intrinsically bound with the Temple. An interpretation of this is found in 1 Chron 28 where David addresses Israel through its Kalimi, Reshaping, 285. O. Plöger, "Reden und Gebete im deuteronomistischen und Chronistischen Geschichtwerk", in W. Schneemelcher (ed.), Festschrift für Gunther Dehn (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1957) 35-49. 42 R. Braun, "Solomonic apologetic in Chronicles", JBL 92 (1973) 502-14. 43 Williamson, "Accession", 351-61. 44 Williamson, "Accession", 357. 41

Composition in Chronicles

49

representatives. He speaks of his 'choseness' ΠΓΌ) "to be king over Israel forever" (DVl3rt> ^ X l t y - ^ V • p t f y ) (V. 4) as well as about Solomon's 'choseness' ΟΓΏ) to be the king sitting "upon the throne of the kingdom of YHWH over Israel" and a Temple Builder, son of YHWH, at the same time (vv. 5, 6, 10; cf. 29:1). The promise of an everlasting dynasty is thus traced back to David (v. 4), but is at the same time conditioned by Solomon's keeping of YHWH's commandments later in v. 7 and again in v. 9. It seems likely, however, that the text in 1 Chron 28 introduces a different semantic nuance of •VlV^/TV'? in w . 4, 7 and 9 respectively. 1 Chron 28:4 mentions the election of David as "king over Israel forever" ( D V L S F T V X I I Y - V Y -[VqV) and is later, in 2 Chron 21:7, rendered as YHWH's promise "to give a lamp to him and to his descendants forever" (tra'TT^O ТЗ f? nrV?) (cf. 2 Chron 21:7). 'David' of 1 Chron 28:4 thus represents the entire dynasty in 2 Chron 21:7, while DVlV*? is equated there with Π,ΏΤΙ~'?3.45 A different picture is discernable in nVivV"TV in 1 Chron 28:7: I will establish his kingdom forever 1ГПЭ^й"ПХ ТЛЗ'ЭГЛ) if he continues resolute in keeping my commandments and my ordinances, as he is today (ПТП DTD)

and ТУ1? inl Chron 28:9:46 If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will abandon you forever ΙΓΠΡ).

In v. 7 the establishment of the eternal kingdom is conditional on the keeping of the commandments. As Pomykala suggests, the meaning of ПУНКТУ should here be interpreted as perpetual, i.e. in this case 'as long as the conditions are met'. 47 Nothing suggests that it reaches beyond Solomon's reign since the meaning of D V I J ^ as covering a person's life-span is well attested to.48 Finally, v. 9, where "TV*? stands as a synonym for D^TV*?, it is only concerned with Solomon, and again only covers his lifetime.

45

in 1 Chron 28:4 could thus not be reduced to the span of David's lifetime, pace K.E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism. Its History and Significance for Messianism (JBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 97 n. 33. 46 i f r is a common equivalent of AS for the everlasting nature of the Davidic dynasty, it is expressed in Ps 89:30 in the words: 12ПТ Т1Й&И "I will establish his line forever". Other places where is synonymous with are: Amos 1:11; Mic 7:18; Ps 9:19; 19:10; 21:7; 22:27; 37:29; 61:9; 111:3, 8, 10; 112:3, 9; Prov 12:19; 29:14; Job 19:24 etc. They are assembled in order to express their meaning in a more emphatic manner: 12?! nVCOVV in Exod 15:18; Mic 4:5; Ps 9:6; 10:16; 21:5; 45:7, 18; 48:15; 52:10; 104:5; 119:44; 145:1-2, 21; Dan 12:3. Parallelism 1 is found in Pss 92:8; 111:8; 148:6; Isa 26:4; 45:17; 47:7; Hab 3:6. 47 Pomykala, Davidic Dynasty, 97. 48 Exod 21:6; Lev 25:46; Deut 15:17; 1 Sam 1:22; 27:12; Job 40:28 (ET 41:1), cf. H.D. Preuss, "ПУ]5Г, TDOTX (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 535.

50

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

Therefore, the dynasty is presented as ensured to David and everlasting, but the kingship of Solomon is already conditioned by the keeping the Law, and so is the kingship of every other ruler after him. The phrase ЛТЛ DVD in 1 Chron 28:7 may indeed have a programmatic force in this sense, as De Vries suggests.49 By the YHWH's declaration in the dynastic promise, that his steadfast love (ΤΟΠ) will not be taken from Solomon as it was from Saul, the Chronicler anticipates Solomon's perfect attitude towards the Law. Law and Temple are intimately connected in the theology of Chronicles. This is particularly evident in the introduction to Solomon's prayer in Ps 132:8-10 where the Ark containing the Law appears as a symbol for the presence of YHWH in the newly built Temple (cf. 2 Chron 6:41; 5:10; 6:11). The necessary implication of this is that Solomon could not have succeeded in his mission to build the Temple if he would not recognize the Law and keep its commandments. His rule is perfect in this regard and is set as programmatic for both past and future rulers. The phrase in 1 Chron 29:25 introduces Solomon's reign: Π*?νΏ*7 ΠΖΛίΡ'-ΠΧ ГПГР У г П "the LORD highly exalted Solomon". This phrase serves as a 'resumptive repetition' in 2 Chron 1:1, and could have been intended as a pun on the fate of Saul: nQ 1 ! "so Saul died for his unfaithfulness" (1 Chron 10:13). More precisely, the 'exaltation of Solomon ' (rfiWÜ) may refer, by means of paronomasia, back to the 'unfaithfulness of Saul' (VVQ), since Solomon is presented as his exact opposite. The unfaithfulness of Saul is specified as a violation of YHWH's command, i.e. the Law, and also against the cult, through his seeking guidance (Uh"7) from the medium Q1X) rather than from YHWH (v. 14). Saul's twofold guilt corresponds with the two perfect qualities of Solomon: (1) he is blameless in keeping the Law as he was called upon by David: "If you seek him (ttH"7), he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will abandon you forever"; (2) as a chosen Temple Builder he initiates a new era of a fixed cult in Jerusalem. The literary technique of paronomasia is quite often employed in Chronicles, thus increases the probability that it is also used here.50 Moreover, the i n t e r p l a y of (Saul) - rfiWÜ (Solomon) appears to be an interpretation of that which was predicted in the dynastic promise concerning Solomon: 13 ... I will not take my steadfast love (ТОП) from him (Solomon), as I took it from him who was before you (Saul), 14 but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever (1 Chron 17:13-14). 49

De Vries, Chronicles, 218. Cf. Kalimi, Reshaping, 67-81, identifying over twenty further cases of paronomasia Chronicles. 50

in

Composition in Chronicles

51

Unlike Chronicles, 1 Kings 1 presents the transition of kingship from David to Solomon as a more problematic issue. In the beginning, Adonijah, son of Haggith exalts himself, saying, "I will be king" (1 Kings 1:5) and without the intervention of Bathsheba and Nathan this would probably have been the case. Adonijah himself describes the transfer of the kingdom to Solomon as follows: 15 ... the kingdom has turned about (ПЭЧ^ЙП ЗОГЛ) and become my brother's, for it was his from the LORD (1 Kings 2:15).

The verb UDO which is used in 1 Kings 2:15 is already employed by the Chronicler with reference to a discontinuity of rulership from Saul to David. In omitting this story and obscuring the transition from David to Solomon in his narration, the Chronicler again emphasizes the unity of their reign. The preparation of Solomon for his kingship and mission is performed by David. As aforementioned, successful wars with the enemies of Israel, the promise of a name like the name of the great men on earth, a peaceful dwelling place for Israel and the establishment of the Davidic dynasty are the assurances made to David through Nathan. However, the dynastic promise itself is devoid of any direct link from Solomon to the Temple. On the other hand, in the interpretation of the promise in Chronicles all abovementioned issues propheciesed by Nathan only serve as preparatory activity for Solomon's mission of building the Temple. There are three main steps to these preparations: (1) securing peace through warfare, (2) instructing Solomon regarding the keeping of the Torah, which is a presupposition for the blessing of YHWH, (3) preparing all the necessary means for the building activities including the organization of workers for the Temple, a plan for its construction, and financial support. To the first point we should add the significance of David's warfare in acquiring bronze (1 Chron 18:8), silver and gold (18:11; 2 Chron 5:1), which were necessary items for the future.51 Special attention is paid by some scholars to the second point, since it renders the unconditional dynastic promise in a conditional way. The relevant texts are 1 Chron 22:12-13; 28:7, 9; 2 Chron 6:16; 7:17-18, but in the present analysis I confine myself to 1 Chron 22:12-13. The text is a further expansion on and an explanation of the preceding v. 10 which, in turn, repeats the message of the last part of the dynastic promise (1 Chron 17:12-14).

Cf. Williamson, "Accession", 358; idem, "The Temple in the Book of Chronicles", in W. Horbury (ed.), Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel (JSNTSup 48; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 15-31, on p. 18.

52

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

1 Chron 17:12-14

1 Chron 22:10

12

10

He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever.13 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you,14 but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever.

He shall build a house for my name. He shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.

The mention of Saul's failure is omitted in 22:10 and the message is entirely focused on Solomon. David explains to Solomon that the promise assumes the keeping of the Law: 11 Now, my son, the LORD be with you, so that you may succeed in building (ГПЭ1 nrfrcm "|Й2? miT TP) the house of the LORD your God, as he has spoken concerning you. 12 Only, may the LORD grant you discretion and understanding, so that when he gives you charge over Israel ΉΧΉ) you may keep the law of the LORD your God. 13 Then you will prosper (ГР^ХП TX) if you are careful to observe the statutes and the ordinances that the LORD commanded Moses for Israel. Be strong and of good courage. Do not be afraid or dismayed (1 Chron 22:11-13).

The three verses quoted above are organized in a remarkable manner. The first part of v.l 1 contains a final clause where the hendiadys ΓΡ^ΠΊ n r f r x m "so that you may successfully build" is set as a purpose of ГЛГР TP "YHWH be with you". This means that the task of building the Temple would have been impossible without YHWH's assistance. The beginning of the next verse ГЛГР 1*7~|ΓΙ'' "Only, may the LORD grant you" seems to further develop the idea of "JÖ3? ГПГР TP "YHWH be with you" of v. 11, explaining what YHWH must provide - discretion and understanding (Π^ΠΊ büil?). However, the apodosis indicates that this time it refers to the responsibility of Solomon to the nation of Israel rather than to the Temple. The verb (hifil) at the head of the following v. 13 can be taken as: (1) a direct continuation of the preceding v. 12 in which case the verb would refer to a successful reign and can be translated as 'prosperity'; (2) resuming ΓΡίΠΙ ПП^ХЛ of v. 11 thus referring to the successful building of the Temple; (3) a summary of all the preceding i.e. referring to the successful building of the Temple and at the same time also to a prosperous reign. This lack of clarity in the demarcation between Palace and Temple underscores the close affinity between the two institutions in Solomon's kingdom. Both Solomon's reign and his mission to build the Temple are condi-

Composition in Chronicles

53

tioned by YHWH's 'providing' which, in turn, assumes the keeping of His Law.52 However, it is not the historical Solomon who is important to the Chronicler. Solomon's representation as a 'perfect ruler' can most plausibly be explained as a model for a future Davidic ruler, and what matters in this regard is the author's stress on the fact that the Law and the Temple represent a unity. It could thus be asserted that only through abidance by the Law can YHWH be approached in the Temple. The introduction of an element of conditionality to the unconditional dynastic promise means that the author supplements the framework of Dynasty - Temple - Land with one more important feature: the Torah. The more complete framework, Dynasty - Temple - Land - Torah, is already present in Dtr, but the Chronicler elaborates on it in his own unique way. A closer scrutiny of the climactic passage of the reign of Solomon and, indeed, of the whole of Chronicles, namely the dedication of the Temple (2 Chron 5-7), present this framework as inherent in cult-kingship relations in David-Solomon's rule. Looking back to the text of 1 Chron 16-17, which marks the transition from the Ark narrative to the Temple, it becomes apparent that these chapters form an inclusio with the text-block of 2 Chron 5-7, dealing with the transferring of the Ark to the recently-built Temple. A more exact demarcation of the beginning of the first block can be found in 1 Chron 15:25; at this point a new diction is marked by ΤΡΊ at the beginning of a clause, which is then repeated in w . 26 and 29. The w . 25, 28 read: So (TH) David and the elders of Israel 'ЗрТ), and the commanders of the thousands (D'QVxn Ή&>), went to bring up the ark of the covenant of the YHWH from the house of Obed-edom with rejoicing ... So all Israel (VxitP'' VD) brought up the ark of the covenant of the LORD with shouting, to the sound of the horn, trumpets, and cymbals, and made loud music on harps and lyres,

which corresponds to 2 Chron 5:2-5: Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel (Vjafr·' ЧрГПХ ПЙ^' ^Тф" TN) and all the heads of the tribes (тийП 'WXV^O), the leaders of the ancestral houses of the people of Israel 'ЗЭ"? ΓΓΏΧΠ 'N'Ü']) in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the YHWH out of the city of David, which is Zion.3 And all the Israelites Mosis, Untersuchungen, 90-92, makes an attempt to question the primary nature of 1 Chron 22:12-13, since he deems them as irreconcilable with the approach of 1 Chron 17:13 and 2 Chron 1:12 in which, if compared to the Vorlage of 2 Sam 7:14 and 1 Kings 3:14, any possibility that Solomon may sin is ruled out. Williamson, in a reply to this contention, points to 2 Chron 2:16 and 7:17, which both concede such a possibility and, consequently, dismisses the necessity of the secondary nature of 1 Chron 22:12-13 as well as 28:7b-10; cf. H.G.M. Williamson, "The Dynastic Oracle in the Book of Chronicles", in A. Rofe/Y. Zakovitch (ed.), Studies in Ancient Narrative and Historiography: Sefer Yitshak Aryeh Zeligman (Isaac Leo Seeligman Anniversary Volume) vol. 3 (Jerusalem: Rubenstein, 1983), 305-18.

54

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

tt^X Vd) assembled before the king at the festival that is in the seventh month. 4 And all the elders of Israel came, and the Levites carried the ark. 5 So they brought up the ark, the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the tent; the priests and the Levites brought them up. The text of 1 Chron 15:25 marks its beginning with ΤΡΊ, as does 2 Chron 5:2, by means of the particle TN, which breaks the flow of the wayyiqtol narrative sequence in the immediately preceding text. The two clauses represent the two principal stages of the Ark's transfer to its final destination at the Temple, i.e. its relocation to Jerusalem and then to the Temple itself. These clauses further introduce two parallel text-blocks in which the Ark of the Covenant and the Davidic dynasty are closely connected. Since the text of 2 Chron 5 - 7 is almost identical to its Vorlage of 1 Kings, we can assume that its parallel text of 1 Chron 16-17, which is unique to Chronicles, derives its direct transition from the Ark narrative to the dynastic promise on the model of 2 Chron 5 - 7 . While 1 Chron 16-17 provides a link between the dynasty and the Abrahamic covenant related to the promise of the land and both are unconditional, it is the Mosaic Law which is connected with the dynastic promise in 2 Chron 5 - 7 (5:10 and 6:11). A combination of the promise of the land with the promise of kingship is found in the Ρ texts of Gen 17:6, 16 and 35:11—1253 while the bond between the Mosaic Law and the promise of the dynasty is the presupposition of the Deuteronomistic theology. The frame Dynasty - Temple - Torah - Land here forms a structure in which the elements cannot be separated from one another and which points to a synthesis of the Priestly and Deuteronomic traditions.54 Chronicles is distinguished from its Dtr Vorlage in which this framework is found in the abovementioned synthesis as well as in its concern for 'all Israel'. The latter is in this particular case displayed in the unique text of 1 Chron 15:28 where 'all Israel' is involved in bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem. However, the theme is essential for Chronicles in its entirety and is therein often introduced in places with no parallels in the Dtr Vorlage.55 The PalaceTemple relations in the portrayal of the united monarchy in Chronicles must therefore be viewed as a part of a larger framework where a concern for 'all M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 80. The fact that the kingships in Israel and Edom are implied here can be inferred from Gen 36:31. Ishmael is not discussed since in Gen 17:20 the word X'ifJ is used in the same context, rather than 54 For the combination of Deuteronomic and Priestly Laws in Chronicles see J.R. Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler's History Work. An Inquiry into the Chronicler's References to Laws, Festivals, and Cultic Institutions in Relationship to Pentateuchal Legislation (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 87-121. 55 1 Chron 9:1; 11:4, 10; 12:39; 13:5,6; 14:8; 15:3,28; 19:17; 21:5; 28:4, 8; 29:23, 25; 2 Chron 11:3; 12:1; 13:4, 15; 29:24; 30:1; 31:1.

Composition in Chronicles

55

Israel', the Land and Torah is presented as an integral part in these relations. The bond is thus expanded into Dynasty - Temple - Torah - Land 'All Israel'.

2.3 Y H W H will build a house (dynasty) for David As the kingdom of David, in its theological signification, cannot be explained through the preceding rule of Saul, i.e. David is not a successor of Saul and God simply 'turns' (3DÖ) the kingdom from Saul to David, the division of the monarchy is not explicable through the reign of DavidSolomon. Unlike Dtr in which the division of the kingdom is viewed as a direct consequence of Solomon's idolatry (1 Kings 11), the Chronicler depicts the division as separated from Solomon's rule since the king is presented as flawless. His act of idolatry is omitted in the account of his reign. The responsibility for the rift is shifted entirely to Rehoboam and Jeroboam who follow Solomon, thus creating a discontinuity between Israel's united and divided kingdoms. The break of unity is expressed in 2 Chron 10:15 through the word ГПОЗ - the derivation of the root UDO which was also used to describe the 'turn of the kingdom' from Saul to David in 1 Chron 10:14.56In both cases UDO marks an abrupt change in the history of Israel. Both changes are best explained through the message of the dynastic promise. In the case of a transition from Saul to David the discontinuity is a consequence of the fact that the promise of an everlasting dynasty is pronounced only in connection with David. The transition from a united to a divided monarchy is not a part of the dynastic promise which only assumes a kingdom for 'all Israel' ruled by David and Solomon. In this regard the depiction of the division of the kingdom differs from the pericope of Saul's failure (1 Chron 10) which is constructed as an expansion of the last part of the dynastic promise, i.e. the fate and character of Saul is contrasted with that of Solomon. On the other hand, the promise to David remains valid even after the division, although it is no longer the monarchy desired by YHWH. Unlike Dtr where an enduring dynasty (ΙΰΧ^ΓΡΠ) is also promised to northern Israel under the condition of their abidance by the Law (1 Kings 11:38-9), Chronicles only considers the Davidic kings as the true heirs of the everlasting kingdom (2 Chron 13:5). The two abovementioned discontinuities in Chronicles define the text of the David-Solomon's reign as an independent section, and, apart from the portrayal of the death of Saul, divide the narrative part of the history of Ackroyd, "Exegete", 9.

56

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

Israel into two main blocks: (1) the reign of David-Solomon (1 Chron 11 2 Chron 9); (2) the reign of the Davidic dynasty following the division of the kingdom. Palace-Temple relations remain a central theme in the history of Israel after the division of the kingdom, and are continuously linked to 'all Israel', Land and Torah. However, the whole framework: Dynasty - Temple Torah - Land - 'All Israel', undergoes a transformation. After the schism, Land no longer signifies 'the land' of the twelve tribes as it was under the reign of David-Solomon. The dynasty is only preserved because of the promise to David, but is no longer the kingdom of 'all Israel' as was originally designed by YHWH. 'All Israel' is now divided, and the tendency to renew its original unity through cultic occasions is clearly visible in the reigns of Asa, Hezekiah and Josiah. The most peculiar feature in this regard is the application of the designation 'all Israel' to Judah (2 Chron 11:3; 12:1) and to northern Israel (2 Chron 10:16; 11:13) respectively.57 This is a provocative approach to the reader who is, at this stage, well-aware of the fact that 'all Israel' is frequently used for the united nation under the leadership of its ideal rulers. In fact, there is some irony in the use of the term after the division of the kingdom. However, the author may thus point precisely to the foremost problem of the division (which also implies additional difficulties): the loss of the empire for 'all Israel' established by YHWH. YHWH's warning to Israel is important for understanding the framework in its entirety: 17 As for you, if you walk before me, as your father David walked, doing according to all that I have commanded you and keeping my statutes and my ordinances, 18 then I will establish your royal throne, as I made covenant with your father David saying, 'You shall never lack a successor to rule over Israel'. 19 But if you turn aside and forsake (3TV) my statutes and my commandments that I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship them, 20 then I will pluck you up from the land that I have given you; and this house, which I have consecrated for my name, I will cast out of my sight, and will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples (2 Chron 7:19-20).

The fate of the dynasty, Temple and Land is, accordingly, fully dependent on the keeping of the Torah. While the rule of David and Solomon is exemplary in this regard, the abandonment QTV) of the Torah and 'unfaithfulness' (VVQ) which follow the division of the monarchy are cardinal issues.58

Japhet, Ideology, 267-78; cf. Williamson, Israel, 110. 2 Chron 12:1, 5; 13:10-11; 15:2; 21:10; 24:18, 20, 24; 26:16, 18; 28:6, 19, 22; 29:6; 30:7; 34:25; 36:14, cf. Dillard, Chronicles, 77-8. 58

Composition in Chronicles

57

The Palace-Temple relations continue to be a central theme after the division of Israel. By that time, the task of building the Temple has already been accomplished, and therefore the approach is no longer measured by the involvement in preparations and building activity. Attitudes towards the Temple are rather examined through the various approaches of individual rulers to all that the Temple represents. This tenet is, in turn, defined in Solomon's dedicatory prayer (2 Chron 6:12-42) and in YHWH's answer to it (7:11-22). It has been recognized that especially part 7:13-15 of YHWH's response, which is unique to Chronicles, serves as a programmatic text for the Chronicler's retribution theology.59 12 Then the LORD appeared to Solomon in the night and said to him: "I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for myself as a house of sacrifice 13 When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, 14 if my people who are called by my name humble themselves (273Э), pray (hitp WQ), seek my face 02>]?3), and turn (31®') from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal (N31) their land. 15 Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayer that is made in this place (2 Chron 7:12-15).

Retribution is, according to this, intrinsically connected with an attitude towards the Temple and the abovementioned requirements are presented as prerequisites for all who wish to approach YHWH in His sanctuary. Behind 'humbling' (УЗЭ), 'praying' (hitp У?Э, ГПГР X*lj?), 'seeking' (UhT 1 typQ) YHWH's face, and 'turning' (31Ш ) from wicked ways, there is always embedded a relation to the proper cult or/and the Torah which, as aforementioned, resides at the heart of the Temple. We may even assert that the Temple in Chronicles is defined through the Law as represented by the Ark of the Covenant. One way to trace the relations between Palace and Temple after the division, therefore, leads through an examination of how the abovementioned issues are applied in the rule of the individual Davidic kings. In the rule of Rehoboam - the first king after the division - two occasions pertaining to the abovementioned attitudes are registered in a direct relation to the Temple and cult. In contrast to Dtr, the Chronicler mentions the coming of priests and Levites from the North to Judah and Jerusalem followed by all those "who had set their hearts to seek YHWH God of Israel" in order to sacrifice to YHWH, the God of their ancestors (2 Chron 11:16). Later, during the reign of the same king, the importance of a humble attitude towards YHWH is the message of the account on the invasion of the Egyptian king, which served as a retribution for Rehoboam's

Williamson, Chronicles, 225-6.

58

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

abandonment of the law (ГЛГР ГГЛГГШ ПТУ) followed by 'all Israel' (2 Chron 12:1). The story is framed by the inclusio of 2 Chron 12: 6 - 7 and v. 12, both mentioning the humble attitude (V3D) of the king and in the case of vv. 6 - 7 also the princes of Israel who represent the nation. As a consequence of this act, YHWH mitigates his wrath and saves Jerusalem. Therefore, in the context of the inclusio the act of looting the Temple treasures by Pharaoh during Rehoboam's reign is viewed more positively. The general impression is that Jerusalem is saved from complete destruction because of the king's repentance rather than that the looting of the Temple treasures is a consequence of his failure to be faithful. The difference in the evaluations of the reign of Abijah (13:1-23 [ET 13:1-14:1]) by Dtr and Chronicles is considerable. In a few verses 1 Kings 15 ( w . 3-5) makes the reader aware of the king's unfaithfulness and comments that only for the sake of David has the kingdom not yet been destroyed. In Chronicles, on the other hand, the account is expanded and, more importantly, Abijah is portrayed in a more positive light. In his speech to the Northerners (13:4-12) Abijah emphasizes the proper cult of YHWH, who is God and at the same time King over 'all Israel'. The author puts together the kingship of YHWH with that of the Davidic descendants: Do you not know that the LORD God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel forever to David and his sons by a covenant of salt? ... And now you think that you can withstand the kingdom of the LORD in the hand of the sons of David, because you are a great multitude and have with you the golden calves that Jeroboam made as gods for you ( w . 4, 8).

This in fact implies that after the division of the monarchy the kings of the Davidic line still serve as representatives of YHWH's universal kingdom on earth. This also explains why the Chronicler decided not to record the history of northern Israel. On the other hand, at the conclusion of his address to the Northerners Abijah makes it clear that YHWH is the God of their fathers (v. 12) and should thus also be their king. Such kingship is, however, intrinsically bound with the Davidic line and the proper cult in Jerusalem. An important part of Abijah's exhortation therefore focuses on the cult, and in accordance with the characteristic style of the Chronicler, cultic duties are listed in w . 11-12. 60 Cultic activity also seems to be decisive in the battle of Jehudah and Israel described immediately after the speech. This battle is won by a prayer and the liturgical activity of priests (vv. 12, 14-15), and, as such, it is won by YHWH who "defeated Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah" (v. 15).

60 As it is in 1 Chron 9:28-32; 23:28-31; 2 Chron 2:4; 8:12; 29:4-7, 18-19; cf. Dillard, Chronicles, 105.

Composition in Chronicles

59

The narrative on the reign of Asa is one of those which are expanded compared to the text of Dtr. In this case, the expansion established, among other things, the theme of "seeking of YHWH" as a prominent premise for the whole account. This theme is introduced right at the beginning of Asa's reign when he commands Judah to seek YHWH (ΒΠ*Τ) (14:3 [ET 4]), and then again in 14:6 (ET 7); 15:2, 4, 12, 13, 15. In 16:12 it already appears in a negative sense when Asa fails to seek YHWH. The theme of 'prayer' is on the other hand connected with Asa's battle with Zerah the Cushite, which, as with the battle of Abijah with Northerners, has no parallel in 1 Kings. The battle is won by YHWH after the king's prayer (14:10 [ET 14:11]). However, in opposition to the battle of Abijah there is no involvement of priests. After the battle there is a sudden and emphatic entrance of the prophet Azariah set by casus pendens syntax: DTfrX ίΤΠ Т^У ΠΓΡΠ T t t J T p ΊΠΉΤνΐ (15:1). The part of his message in 15:2, 4 is constructed on the basis of 2 Chron 7:13-22: 2 ... Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: The LORD is with you, while you are with him. If you seek him О^П), he will be found by you, but if you abandon him (ЭТУ), he will abandon you. 3 For a long time Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law; 4 but when in their distress they turned to the LORD (Site") , the God of Israel, and sought him 0С]?Э), he was found by them (2 Chron 15:2-4).

The prophet's address to the king and people has a deep impact on Asa, who decides, on that basis, to carry out a reform in the cult: When Asa heard these words, the prophecy of Azariah son of Oded, he took courage, and put away the abominable idols (•'ЭТрФ'П ЧЭ2Г1) from all the land of Judah and Benjamin and from the towns that he had taken in the hill country of Ephraim. He repaired the altar of the LORD (ПИТ ГПТЙ~ПХ ΙΡ'ΤΓΗ) that was in front of the vestibule of the house of the LORD (15:8).

Following the description of the reform, the narrative flows directly to a depiction of a cultic occasion in Jerusalem, where, along with Judah and Benjamin, the northern tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh and Simeon61 are assembled. The story is connected to the covenant renewal of the whole assembly (vv. 12-15) which underlies the importance of the idea of 'all Israel' for the Chronicler. The retribution theology is vividly present in the text of 14:5 (ET 14:4)—15:15 which, if compared to the Vorlage of 1 Kings

61 Simeon is, in spite of his inclusion in the Northern tribes in this text (cf. also 2 Chron 34:6), a Southern tribe according to the genealogies of Chronicles (1 Chron 4:28-43) as well as Josh 19:1-9. In the Chronicler's time the tribe is already assimilated into Judah, cf. Dillard, Chronicles, 121.

60

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

15, is interpolated between 1 Kings 15:12 and 13.62 Since Asa is righteous, his kingdom "had rest" (рХЛ HttpU?) and prospers (13:23; 14:5-7 [ET 14:1, 6-8]) as was promised to Solomon in 1 Chron 22:9. However, during the thirty-ninth year of Asa's reign he becomes ill. That, on the other hand, is a consequence of his failure to rely on YHWH as was reported to him by Hanani the seer (16:7-9). The following reign of Jehoshaphat is introduced in the following terms: 3 The LORD was with Jehoshaphat, because he walked in the earlier ways of his father; he did not seek О^П) the Baals, 4 but sought (ϊ£>"Π) the God of his father and walked in his commandments, and not according to the ways of Israel (2 Chron 17:3-4).

In the following narrative this approach of the King is again asserted in 18:4; 19:3 and 20:4, where the whole nation assembles to seek help from YHWH (ΓΠΓΡΏ Щ ^ ) according to his directive. In the reign of Jehoshaphat we observe again that the concerns of Dtr and Chronicles are different. 1 Kings 22:41-50, in spite of Jehoshaphat's positive evaluation, provides only a very brief summary of his story. For the Chronicler, on the other hand, Jehoshaphat is one of the most important kings of the period following the division, and, correspondingly, he is rewarded with an extensive account (2 Chron 17-20). The cultic activity during Jehoshaphat's reign is placed in the context of the war with Moab and Ammon. It is possible that the story is a reelaborated version of the account of the war with Moab in 2 Kings 3, and that the cultic prophet Jahaziel substitutes Elisha, having the same function in the narrative of Dtr.63 Also striking is the parallel with Asa's story.64 Both kings are found in hopeless situations in which their enemies are so strong that a natural victory over them is excluded. Jehoshaphat proclaims a fast for Judah as an act of repentance which corresponds to the requirement of YHWH stated in the programmatic text of 2 Chron 7:14.65 Solomon's prayer is strongly echoed in the prayer of Jehoshaphat in 2 Chron 20:9, which is an allusion to 2 Chron 6:28-39. The response from YHWH comes through the prophet Jahaziel - the Levite descended from Asaph. It should be noted that without this spontaneously-inspired singer, the prayer of Judah's ruler would have remained unanswered. This is in contrast to Solomon's prayer which was answered directly. Such a direct reply from YHWH was also received by David upon his addressing Him concerning 62

Dillard, Chronicles, 123. Dillard, Chronicles, 157. 64 Dillard, Chronicles, 129-30, lists six analogies between the account of Asa and that of Jehoshaphat. 65 Williamson, Chronicles, 295. 63

Composition in Chronicles

61

the forthcoming battle with the Philistines (1 Chron 14:10, 14-15). Another important issue is that Jehaziel's speech in 20:17 has the same character as that of Moses in Exod 14:13-14, before the crossing of the Red Sea.66 This battle is not for you to fight; take your position, stand still, and see the victory of the LORD on your behalf, О Judah and Jerusalem. Do not fear or be dismayed; tomorrow go out against them, and the LORD will be with you (2 Chron 20:17). Do not be afraid, stand firm, and see the deliverance that the LORD will accomplish for you today ... The LORD will fight for you, and you have only to keep still (Exod 14:13-14).

Normally it would be the role of a leader, in this case the King, to make such a proclamation, but here it is fulfilled by a prophet. The King himself refers to obedience to the words of prophets in this sense (v. 20). The war is presented as the direct involvement of YHWH in a liturgical ceremony. The principle actors in the battle are not soldiers, but rather the Levites, and thus also a battle-shout (ЛУЛП) is replaced by their choir's praise of YHWH.67 After the victorious battle, all return to the Temple in Jerusalem (vv. 27-28). A positive evaluation of Jehoshaphat in the introductory chapter 17 and the following passages is reflected in the prosperity of his kingdom: building activity (17:12), large armies (17:12-19), victory in warfare (20:2-30) and the fact that during his reign the king commands popular support (17:5; 19:4-11; 20:27-30). In the very end of his reign he allies himself with "Ahaziah who did wickedly", in order to build ships that could go to Tarshish. As a consequence of this alliance Jehoshaphat's ships are wrecked. The reign of Jehoram is the first to mark a complete silence about humbling, praying, seeking YHWH's face or turning from wicked ways. The evaluation of his reign in both Dtr and Chronicles is unequivocally negative. The extension of the account in Chronicles is due to the theology of retribution in which Jehoram is presented as an opposite to the rulers Asa and Jehoshaphat (cf. 21:12). This is a very natural approach since Jehoram, in contrast to Asa and Jehoshaphat who remove the cult of high places, sustains a false worship. A corresponding retribution is announced by the letter of the prophet Elijah who prophesies to Jerobam his prospective punishment and the punishment of his family (21:12-15). Concerning the impact on the kingdom, Jehoram loses control over the areas conquered in campaigns led by previous rulers (21:8-10 cf. 20; 14:9-15). Moreover, the Philistines and Arabs who pay tribute to Jehoshaphat rebel against Jerobam

Japhet, Chronicles, 795. Williamson, Chronicles, 300.

62

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

(21:16; cf. 17:11).68 The only reason why YHWH does not completely destroy the kingdom of Judah is His everlasting covenant with David (v. 7). The following account of Jehoram's son Ahaziah (2 Chron 22:1-9) also lacks any mention of a positive approach to YHWH as required in 2 Chron 7:14. The evaluation of Chronicles is as deeply negative in the case of Ahziah as it is in the case of Jehoram. The account is indeed considered by the Chronicler as a continuation of Jehoram's politics. This is clear from 22:3 where Ahaziah is linked to the previous rule: ΠΝΠΝ ГРП Ό*ΠΠ "[^Π ΝΊΓΠ DJ, "He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab". In comparison with the account in Dtr, the Chronicler presents a shortened version since he omits a depiction of the coup of Jehu. Again, there is neither mention of the Temple nor of the cult, but the comment of v. 3 assumes that Ahaziah continues in worship at high places after Jehoram. Ahaziah's death is depicted as a result of God's providence and a larger part of the account is devoted to an explanation of how Ahaziah was killed by Jehu ( w . 5-9). The retribution is only linked to his personal destiny not to the kingdom. This appears to be the subject matter of the whole pericope. The reign of Athaliah in Chronicles (2 Chron 22:10-23:21) differs from the Vorlage of 2 Kings 11 in terms of reformulation of the events which are described therein. We do not find a fundamental re-elaboration of the Dtr description as has been the case for the rule of Asa or Jehohsaphat.69 Her rule, however, is not considered as a proper reign in either Dtr or in Chronicles. This is sufficiently clear from an absence of opening and closing formulas normally used for framing the reigns of other kings.70 Consequently, the retribution theology cannot be applied here according to the same principles. The narrative of the coup of the priest Jehoiada in 2 Chron 23 begins with his entering into a pact with the commanders of hundreds (Π1ΧΏΠ There is reason to consider them as Levites, as (1) unlike in 2 Kings 11 they are all named by names which are found, with the exception of Elishaphat, in priestly or Levitical lists found in Ezra, Nehemiah or 1 Chron71; (2) further on in the text, in 23:7-10, it is already explicit that the function of Levites is to serve as the king's armed bodyguards as he enters and leaves the Temple. In general, the coup, as a subject matter of 2 Chron 23, is presented as a 'liturgical activity' of Levites and the nation as a religious assembly (Ъпр) (vv. 2-3) including liturgical music (v. 13). The sanctity of the 'Temple space' is highlighted in w . 5 - 6 and 19:

Dillard, Chronicles, 164. Japhet, Chronicles, 827. Williamson, Chronicles, 314. Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 271; cf. Williamson, Chronicles, 315.

Composition in Chronicles

63

all the people shall be in the courts of the house of the LORD. Do not let anyone enter the house of the LORD except the priests and ministering Levites; they may enter, for they are holy, but all the other people shall observe the instructions of the LORD. (w. 5-6) He stationed the gatekeepers at the gates of the house of the LORD so that no one should enter who was in any way unclean, (v. 19)

The role of the Temple, the involvement of the Levites and the religious assembly in the fundamental issues of the monarchy show how tightly the Palace and the Temple are connected. This link is especially emphasised in light of the narrative of Dtr in 2 Kings 11, in which the enthronement of Joash is depicted as a political coup of some sort, although it is led by the priest Jehoiada. Surprisingly, in the reign of Joash we do not find any of the explicit requirements presented in 2 Chron 7:14. In the absence of a description of the continuous cultic practice in the high places from 2 Kings 12:3, the first part of the account in Chronicles is devoted to the restoration of the Temple by Joash. This commended period of the king's reign is framed by an inclusio with the phrase: (]ЛЭЛ) » T W in 2 Chron 24:2 and 14, which means that it was only reached through the support of the priest Jehoiada. The involvement of the Temple in Palace affairs is significant here. The second period, following the death of Jehoiada, is marked by the apostasy (ПТУ) of the people and by the murder of the prophet Zechariah, son of Jehoiada. Both occasions are presented as possible reasons for the invasion of the king of the Arameans to Judah, and the latter is defeated despite his arrival with a small army. A reversal of roles is presented herein as YHWH fights for His nation. The king is then murdered by his own servants who conspire against him, and his burial takes place in the City of David, although not in the tombs of the kings. This is in stark contrast with the burial of the priest Jehoiada who, although not a king, is buried in the City of David 'among the kings' (DO^E^DJ?) (cf. w . 16, 25).72 The account of Amaziah in 2 Chron 25 draws closely on the narrative of 2 Kings 14, inserting in addition to it the part of vv. 5-16. The information provided in 2 Kings 14:4, that the high places are not removed and that the people still make offerings at them, is omitted in Chronicles. The first reference to a cultic practice in the account (v. 14) is a negative one, indicating the worship o f ' g o d s of the men of Seir' by Amaziah after he defeats Edom. A later comment in v. 20 uses the verb ФИЛ to express Amaziah's idolatry, prompting YHWH's reaction of sending the prophet in order to warn the king and not punish him directly. The second and the last detail with regard

Dillard, Chronicles, 193.

64

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

to that era is concerned with the Temple. Joash, the king of the Israel, seizes the gold, silver and vessels from the Temple after defeating Amaziah (v. 24). This is almost literally taken from its Vorlage and there is no further elaboration on the theme of the Temple with the exception of the reference to Obed-Edom (DTTX "ПУ). As Japhet observes, the presence of the name ППХ "ПУ could in this case be explained in the context of the already mentioned worship (13У) of idols of Edom by Amaziah in v. 14, not recorded in Dtr.73 This theological rather than historical allusion,74 linking the worship of idols to the plundered Temple, is significant in that it connects the former with the latter according to a cause-result pattern typical of retribution theology. Amaziah's defeat which is reflected, inter alia, in the plundering of the Temple, is a consequence of his idolatry and refusal to accept the warning of the prophet sent by YHWH ( w . 14-16). The introductory verses to the reign of Uzziah (2 Chron 26) include the following information: He set himself to seek О^П) 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 (DTlVXH ΙΙΤ^Π) (v.5).

His praised period of reign, in which he is described as 'seeking God' (UH"7) is neither connected with any reference to cult practice nor with the Temple. Naturally, this period entails a divine blessing (vv. 5-15) by means of a victory in warfare, large army, wealth, fame, and building programs.75 On the other hand, during the later period Uzziah's attitude towards the Temple becomes fatal. He commits against YHWH when he enters the Temple to burn incense, which is only a priestly prerogative (26:18). His subsequent illness constitutes a confirmation of his injustice in his controversy with the rebuking priests (v. 19). As there is no reason to suppose that Uzziah is less competent than the other kings, the story clearly shows that the competence and authority of the 'post-division' kings does not reach the altar. Jotham's attitude towards the Temple and cult is included in 2 Chron 27:2-3: He did what was right in the sight of the LORD just as his father Uzziah had done only he did not invade the temple of the LORD (ГПГГ VSTrVx pi). But the people still followed corrupt practices (DTlTRPb QVn Т15П). He built the upper gate of the house of the LORD fll'Vvn т П ' - П ' З " W ) , and did extensive building on the wall of Ophel.

Japhet, Chronicles, 871. Japhet, Chronicles, 871. Dillard, Chronicles, 207.

Composition in Chronicles

65

A proper attitude to the Temple is expressed through a reference to Uzziah, who transgresses his authority. The building activity referred to in vv. 3 - 4 is an outcome of the King's faithfulness, and is therefore presented as a divine blessing. The same applies to his victorious battle against the Ammonites who then pay tribute to Judah. His power, however, does not corrupt him as it does in the case of Uzziah (cf. 26:16). The references to Uzziah and the corrupt practices of the people result from the editing of the parallel verse in Dtr (2 Kings 15:2). The text of 2 Chron 27:2bc is built around: ... DVH ПУ ...Ϊ0 as is that of 2 Kings 15:35a, but their respective contents are different.76 Instead of mentioning the high places, the Chronicler is concerned with the King's positive transformation by comparing Jotham with Uzziah. The idolatry of the people recorded in Dtr as their "sacrifice and offerings on the high places" appears as "corrupt practices," thus avoiding a direct reference to idolatrous sacrifices. The reference to the construction of the upper gate of the Temple, taken from 2 Kings 15:35, is in the Chronicler's account supplemented by the "extensive building on the wall of Ophel". The building of the upper gate is thus taken only as a part of the other building activities mentioned in the following v.4, and is not underscored in Chronicles. In the depiction of the reign of Ahaz (2 Chron 28:1-27), it is interesting to observe how the Davidic king is portrayed disapprovingly compared with the representatives of the Northern Kingdom. Northerners obey the word of the prophet Oded who appeals to them as the 'brothers' of Judeans (v.ll), and calls for their repentance.77 Although it is clear that the Northerners are adherents of a false cult, in this situation they humble themselves before YHWH, unlike Ahaz during his entire reign. Ironically enough, YHWH humbles (hif УЗЭ) Judah because of the 'faithlessness' (bVft) of the Davidic king Ahaz. This constitutes a reversal of the fortunes of Judah and northern Israel as occurs during the reign of Abijah (cf. 2 Chron 13:8).78 A more specific enumeration of the of Ahaz is presented as an introduction to his story (28:2-4) as well as its conclusion (28:22-25), thus serving as a framework for the whole pericope which tells of him. The story of Hezekiah is the most extensive among the narratives of the Judaic kings following the division of the monarchy. In fact, he is considered the greatest monarch of Judah after the division, differently from Dtr in which Josiah is presented as the most important ruler. However, the account takes 2 Kings 18-20 as its Vorlage, with considerable elaboration on that material. Pivotal in this regard are his efforts concerning the cult, which

Japhet, Chronicles, 891. Williamson, Chronicles, 347. Williamson, Chronicles, 348.

66

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

seem to be the reason for the elaboration on his reign. After the introductory 2 Chron 29:1-2, the rest of the following three chapters is devoted to the cultic theme. The following w . 3-5 elucidate that the King is fully responsible for the cult: In the first year of his reign, in the first month, he opened the doors of the house of the LORD and repaired them (ПрТГП ΠΙΠ'-ΠΌ ГППУгПХ ППЭ ... Х1Л). He brought in the priests and the Levites and assembled them in the square on the east. He said to them, "Listen to me, Levites! Sanctify yourselves, and sanctify the house of the LORD, the God of your ancestors, and carry out the filth from the holy place."

The role of the king in the cultic activity is emphasized by the syntax of the clause of v. 3, starting with the personal pronoun (Х1Л), and is further underscored by the play on words in the name 'Hezekiah' ОГРрТГР). The King's name thus designates his main achievement: repairing of the doors of the Temple (ΠρΤΙΤΊ). This very act enables the renewal of all the Temple activities which were stopped by Ahaz. In w . 6b-9, the previous sin against the cult and the Temple is presented along with its consequences and in accordance with the retribution principle: they have turned away their faces from the dwelling of the LORD, and turned their backs. They also shut the doors of the vestibule and put out the lamps, and have not offered incense or made burnt offerings in the holy place to the God of Israel. Therefore the wrath of the LORD came upon Judah and Jerusalem, and he has made them an object of horror, of astonishment, and of hissing, as you see with your own eyes. Our fathers have fallen by the sword and our sons and our daughters and our wives are in captivity for this.

Hezekiah's decision to cut a covenant with y h w h ( n i n ^ т з ηηΛ "DV Л ΓΙ У) (29:10) is taken immediately after the recapitulation of the previous sin against the cult. This covenant is inextricably tied to the restoration of the Temple service, which constitutes the actual signification of the whole liturgy depicted in 2 Chron 29; it starts with the reparation of the doors of the Temple and concludes with the statement of v.35: ГЛГРТТ'П n*TOV }1ЭП1 - "thus the service of the house of the LORD was restored". In addition to the priests and Levites, the king also gathers the civic officials of Jerusalem (TVЛ ΉΙΡ) for the cultic occasion (v.20). Unlike the priests, the Levites are individually named in w . 12-14 and are claimed to be "more conscientious than the priests in sanctifying themselves" (ЕПЛЭЛй иИрПЛ*? ΖΠ*7 СР^Л) (v. 34). An important role is, furthermore, ascribed to the music played at the sacrifices. It is performed according to the commandment of David, his seer Gad, and his prophet Nathan (v. 25). The instruments are those of David (vv. 26-27), and the words are written by David and his seer Asaf (v. 30). David's prominent

Composition in Chronicles

67

position among the prophets suggests that alongside his role as king and founder of the cult, he is also considered a cultic prophet par excellence. A special liturgical occasion which takes place after the rededication of the Temple is the Passover celebration described in 2 Chron 30. It is linked to the previous account through a continuous narrative flow, which presents the two celebrations as a natural sequence. Celebrating the Passover is not a decision of the king alone, but the result of an agreement with his princes and the entire assembly in Jerusalem (v. 2). The Passover is intended for 'all Israel', not only for Judah (v. 5), and thus the Northerners are also invited to return (ПНУ) to serve YHWH and enter His sanctuary (w.8-9). YHWH, their God, is gracious and merciful (ΠΊΓΠΊ J1ЛП), and will not turn away from them if they return to him (ПНУ) (v. 9). Since many of them do not cleanse themselves before eating the Passover meal (v. 18), Hezekiah prays for them and his prayer is heard (vv. 18-20). This is the only occasion after the division of the united monarchy in which God directly answers a king's intercession, and it is therefore one of the features which positions Hezekiah close to Solomon in the Passover account (cf. 7:14). Williamson has even shown that this account was deliberately structured on the model of Solomon's reign.79 This typology confirms the attitude of the Chronicler for whom the reign of the united monarchy is the point of reference for the evaluation of other kings following the division. The most appraised monarch of Judah thus stands closer to David-Solomon than anybody else, although he is not entirely equal to the two. Only a few men of Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun humble themselves (V33) and come to Jerusalem, others scorn and mock the couriers sent by Hezekiah (30:10-11). Moreover, the monarchy is not restored to the original boundaries of the united kingdom. One important premise recruited in favour of the opposite claim i.e. that it is geographically restored, is based on the assumption that the phrase p X in 30:25 is 'integrally linked' to 2 Chron 30:5:80 "So they decreed to make a proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beer-sheba to Dan ...". The piece of land defined here, spreading "from Beer-sheba to Dan," is, in turn, in an agreement with the text of 1 Chron 21:2. This passage deals with David's census and is contextually associated with 1 Chron 22:2 where the designation p X is employed, and both passages mark the geographical positioning of the united monarchy. However, the composition of verse 2 Chron 30:25 suggests that the phrase is here geographically related only to the northern part of Israel. The verse is arranged in a chiastic order:

Williamson, Israel, 119-125, cf. Dillard, Chronicles, 228-29. Williamson, Israel, 123.

68

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

A c n V m т л э т m i n · ' 'глр-'гэ В VxniyQ ЕГХЗЛ 'гЛртТ'гЭ! в ' Vxniy p s a t r x a n а п д т А' г т л ' з г т п ш т т The phrase in (В') thus points to its equation with in (B) as is the case of ΓΠΊΓΡ in (A) and (A'). The verse informs us that the 'qähäl of Israel' as well as 'resident aliens' (ΠΉΛ) come to Jerusalem from the both parts of the land. In context with 30:5, this would signify that people from the land spreading from Beer-sheba to Dan are present at Hezekiah's Passover feast in Jerusalem, but is not employed in this sense. Consequently, there is nothing to suggest that Hezekiah restores the kingdom to its previous borders, those preceding the division of the monarchy. Contrary to David and Solomon who are obeyed by all Israel (1 Chron 29:23, cf. 11:1-2) and rule the whole land, Hezekiah succeeds in persuading only a few men of Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun to travel to Jerusalem. Others, however, still scorn and mock his couriers. In addition, the boundaries of Hezekiah's kingdom are not identical to those of the former united monarchy. Hezekiah is rewarded by prosperity and initiates projects (32:27-29), achieves military victory (32:1-23) and recognition among the nations (32:23), while also succeeding in unifying northern Israel with Judah for the occasion of the Passover celebration81 His later illness (32:24) is explained, through the retribution principle, as a response to the 'pride of his heart' (Ό*? ΠΠΛ), but his early repentance (V3D) together with the repentance of the inhabitants of Jerusalem is recorded immediately after that. As an outcome ofthat repentance, YHWH's wrath does not affect Judah and Jerusalem during Hezekiah's reign. In the case of Manasseh the theme of 'humbling' (УЭЭ) (2 Chron 33:1-20) is at least as striking as in the case of Ahaz, since Dtr account of 2 Kings 21:1-18 presents a thoroughly negative evaluation of his reign. While the dependence of Chronicles on Dtr can clearly be traced in vv. 1-9, where it is very closely related to its Vorlage, the Chronicler, in a text of approximately the same length, chooses to mention the King's repentance after his period of unfaithfulness. Manasseh's reign could thus be divided into two periods defined through the King's attitude towards the cult and the Temple. The first period is characterized by idolatry. In each verse in vv. 3 - 7 some kind of an illicit cultic activity is named. Manasseh rebuilds the high places which Hezekiah breaks down and erects altars for idol deities. He builds these altars in the Temple, burns his sons as offering in the Dillard, Chronicles, 229.

Composition in Chronicles

69

Valley of Hinnom, and practises soothsaying and sorcery. Importantly, Manasseh is punished immediately after his unfaithful actions. Following an invasion of the Assyrian King he is taken captive and is brought to Babylon. However, as a result of his humbling himself (V3D) and praying (hitp WD), YHWH brings him back to Jerusalem. Manasseh thereafter removes the altars he built and banishes the foreign deities as well as the idol which he placed in the Temple. In v. 14 we are also told that this period is marked by building programs of fortified cities protected by armies, which serve as a reward for righteous kings in Chronicles.82 On the other hand, the note of v. 17, which mentions continuous sacrifices at the high places, makes it clear that the King's former deeds continue to have an impact even after his repentance. The account of Manasseh is tightly connected with the fortune of his son Amon. The Chronicler's version of the son's reign (2 Chron 33:21-25) is not expanded against its Vorlage in 2 Kings 21:19-25, which follows closely. The King's attitude towards the cult in both Dtr and Chronicles is compared to Manasseh's reign. In Dtr, where Manasseh remains unfaithful throughout his reign, Amon is weighed against his father, stating that "he walked in all the ways in which his father walked, served the idols that his father served, and worshiped them, he abandoned YHWH, the God of his ancestors, and did not walk in the way of the YHWH." In Chronicles it is added that, unlike his father, Amon does not repent (ТПХ УЗЭЛЭ 7П7Г УЗЭЗ Vb) (v.23). Although Josiah's account in Chronicles (2 Chron 34-35) is built on the Vorlage of 2 Kings 22:1-23:30, it is restructured to include its own unique focus. An important feature in this regard is the Chronicler's inflated version of the Passover account (cf. 2 Kings 23:21-23). A considerable part of the text is thus concerned with cult and Temple (2 Chron 34:2-35:19). An interesting feature which underscores the importance of the king's cultic activity is the chronological notices encountered only in Chronicles. We are informed that Josiah begins to seek YHWH in the eighth year of his reign and that in twelfth year, at the of age twenty, he begins to purge Judah and Jerusalem of high places and idols (34:3), and that in the eighteenth year of his reign, when he has already purged the land, he orders the repair of the Temple (34:8). As with the account of Dtr, the Book of the Law is found in the Temple (34:14). The account in Chronicles can be viewed as a part of the larger pericope demarcated by the inclusio of 34:6-7 and v. 33:

Dillard, Chronicles, 78, 269.

70

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

6 In the towns of Manasseh, Ephraim, and Simeon, and as far as Naphtali, in their ruins all around, 7 he broke down the altars, beat the sacred poles and the images into powder, and demolished all the incense altars throughout all the land of Israel. Then he returned to Jerusalem (2 Chron 34:6-7). 33 Josiah took away all the abominations from all the territory that belonged to the people of Israel, and made all who were in Israel worship the LORD their God. All his days they did not turn away from following the LORD the God of their ancestors (2 Chron 34:33). This inclusio sets the story of the discovery of the B o o k of the L a w in the context of the cancellation of illicit cults provided by Josiah, which corresponds to the message of the prophecy of Huldah: 24 Thus says the LORD: I will indeed bring disaster upon this place and upon its inhabitants, all the curses that are written in the book that was read before the king of Judah. 25 Because they have forsaken me (3TV) and have made offerings to other gods ... 26 But as to the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the LORD (ϊ^Π), thus shall you say to him: Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Regarding the words that you have heard, 27 because your heart was penitent and you humbled yourself before God (273Э) when you heard his words against this place and its inhabitants, and you have humbled yourself before me (2ПЭ), and have torn your clothes and wept before me, I also have heard you, says the LORD. 28 I will gather you to your ancestors and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace; your eyes shall not see all the disaster that I will bring on this place and its inhabitants." (2 Chron 34:24-8) Y H W H will bring evil and curses written in the just-found b o o k of the law because Judah has forsaken Y H W H (ЭТУ). Because of Josiah's penitence (УЗЭ), however, this will occur after his reign and h e himself will b e gathered to his ancestors in peace. A cultic occasion of special importance is the celebration of Passover ( 3 5 : 1 - 1 9 ) which is an expansion of 2 Kings 2 3 : 2 1 - 2 3 . The Levites are particularly important here. At the beginning w e find a definition of their in addition to the cult as 'teachers for all Israel' Е П Ш й Л ) (35:3). It is emphasised that all w a s prepared according to the directions of David and Solomon (v.4). The j o y f u l and voluntary giving of the king and his princes is reminiscent of the ideal situation described in 1 Chron 2 9 : 3 - 9 . Finally, an assessment of the whole celebration is given in 2 Chron 35:18: No passover like it had been kept in Israel since the days of the prophet Samuel; none of the kings of Israel had kept such a passover as was kept by Josiah, by the priests and the Levites, by all Judah and Israel who were present, and by the inhabitants of Jerusalem. It is, evidently, different f r o m 2 Kings 23:22:

Composition in Chronicles

71

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;

There are three primary aspects to be noted in the aforementioned quotes: (1) the statement that it has been the most unique Passover since the preDavidic days (2 Chron 35:18) carries a different function in Chronicles than it does in 2 Kings 23. In Dtr such an assessment is made because the feast marks a cultic celebration of all Israel in Jerusalem. This, however, is already the case in Chronicles in Hezekiah's Passover (2 Chron 30). As observed by Rudolph, the Levites are entrusted by the king with important functions related to the cult and the statement is thus probably made due to their claim for the given function as reaching to the times before the establishment of the monarchy.83 (2) The Chronicler avoids any explicit reference to the 'period of judges,' although he informs the reader of the issue in a similar manner to that of Dtr. This accords with the omission of the given period in the narrative of Chronicles.84 (3) In the same vein, any reference to 'Judah' is avoided, presumably, in order to maintain the concern for 'all Israel'.85 One difficult situation from a theological viewpoint resides in the presentation of Josiah's death. After his successful reign and faithfulness to YHWH he is murdered by pharaoh's army. Moreover, it is pharaoh who received word from God to instruct Josiah not the king or a prophet from Israel. All this is mitigated by the subsequent mention of the lament for Josiah composed by Jeremiah which has been preserved in Israel ever since. The last chapter of Chronicles which is concerned with the last kings of Judah preserves the original narrative sequence of Dtr, but is abbreviated and introduces important changes. A significant characteristic of the whole section is the handing over of Judah's destiny to the foreign rulers of Egypt and Babylonia. This observation may push a delimitation of the whole section back to 35:20 where the comment is introduced: "After all this, when Josiah had set the Temple in order" (ГРЗГГПХ irPtfttO |ΌΠ IWX nXT_t?D ΉΠΝ). This is most likely intended as a delimitation for the new era of Judah's destiny since the beginning of the next chapter (36:1) ΤΠΝΊΓΡΤΙΝ ]-'~lXn~DV ΊΠΡ'Ί - is a non-abrupt continuation of the preceding narrative, which does not suggest a point of demarcation. Judah's new destiny under foreign rulers therefore starts with 2 Chron 35:20, which is a part of the larger section defined by the prophecyfulfilment pattern. The prophecy of Huldah (35:23-28) does not materialise until the events which occur during the reign of Zedekiah and his generaRudolph, Chronikbücher, 329. Japhet, Chronicles, 1054. Williamson, Chronicles, 407.

72

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

tion, and her prediction that "Josiah will be gathered to his grave in peace" should also be seen in this context. Dillard's contention that the compilers of Kings and Chronicles understand 'gathering to a grave in peace' as 'not seeing the destruction of Jerusalem' rather than the 'non-violent death of Josiah', therefore seems plausible. He also suggests that the story of Ahab in 1 Kings, where his repentance forestalls the end of his dynasty but does not avert his own death (1 Kings 21:27-29; 22:34-37), is a helpful analogy to the connection between Huldah's prophecy and Josiah's demise.86 The pericope which describes the encounter of Josiah with Neco certainly reflects the theology of Deutero-Isaiah, where YHWH as the suzerain can choose a foreign ruler for his purposes. However, nothing suggests that it represents the definitive, irreversible transfer of election away from the Davidic dynasty. On the contrary, the whole composition of Chronicles as we have seen so far points to the future reversal of the given situation as a probable product of authorial intent. The importance of the story resides in its explication to the contemporaries of the Chronicler regarding the causes for Judah's falling under the foreign rule. More importantly, the book demonstrates that all befell in accordance with the will of YHWH and not merely with that of a foreign king. YHWH's favour could return to Israel under the condition that they abide by the Law. YHWH had already reversed the course of events twice before the given situation - during the transition from the reign of Saul to David and following the division of the monarchy after Solomon's reign. This is the manner in which the Chronicler outlines his hopes to his contemporaries, but it is at the same time also a warning. In the narration of the short reign of Jehoahaz (36:1-4) there is no trace of cultic activity and there is no reference to the Temple. In the immediate context of the Babylonian exile, references to the Temple are resumed with the following ruler, Jehoiakim. It is, however, presented in a shortened version compared to that of Dtr. In addition to the narration of 2 Kings, it nevertheless deals with the transportation of the king to Babylon together with some of the vessels of the Temple (36:6-7). From that moment on the destiny of the Temple and the deportation of the nation are depicted as one and the same event. The removal of the Temple vessels goes hand-in-hand with the departure of the nation, and the destruction of the Temple is mentioned at the same time with the slaying and captivity of the people (w. 17-20). The exile is directly connected with the reign of Zedetiah. In 36:11-14, which describes the guilt of the King and the people, contains a vocabulary characteristic to theology of retribution elsewhere in Chronicles: У 3D, ΠΊΦ1, Dillard, Chronicles, 282.

Composition in Chronicles

73

*7VQ, but also in v. 16 (cf. 2 Chron 7:14).87 Among the transgressions of the King, it is mentioned that he does not humble himself before the prophet Jeremiah, and that he rebels against the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in line with the tradition of Ezek 17:12-15. As in the case of Jeremiah, who is explicitly mentioned by the Chronicler, Ezekiel provides a background for the author's reasoning of the exile. The whole story of Chronicles, in its canonical version, closes with Cyrus' decree that the Temple is to be rebuilt. We cannot be certain that 2 Chron 36:22-23, which contains this text, is original to Chronicles since the same text is present at the beginning of the book of Ezra.88 At any rate, the short midras of v. 21, concerned with the Land, is as optimistic about the future as vv. 22-23, which tell of the rebuilding of the Temple.

2.4 Summary The centre of gravity of 1 - 2 Chronicles resides in the promise of the everlasting dynasty in 1 Chron 17. Its principle implication links the dynasty to the Temple, which is a connection that dominates the whole corpus of Chronicles. The image of David in Chronicles is portrayed according to that of Moses, and, in addition to that, relations between David and Solomon are structured on the model of Moses - Joshua in Deuteronomy. This is of essential importance for Chronicles' presentation of the new age of salvation as will be argued in the following chapter. The reigns of David and Solomon have been understood as a unity. It is a well-defined body inside the narrative of 1 - 2 Chronicles. The idealized outlook of David-Solomon's reign suggests that it has been designed to serve as a program for the Chronicler's times and for the future, and not as a theological assessment of a historical reality as in the case of the divided kingdom. The only record of failure during the reign of David-Solomon is that of David in the census pericope, but even this is focused on his repentance, which is one of the main programmatic features of the book. More importantly, the favourable approach to the Samarian community is supported by their repentance during the reign of Ahaz. Such an approach is considerably different from that found in Ezra-Nehemiah. The presentation of David as a repentant sinner depicts him through the prism of the later Psalm tradition. Through the editorial superscriptions to the Psalms, this

Dillard, Chronicles, 300. Cf. Williamson, Israel, 7-10.

74

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

tradition offers their re-interpretation as prayers of the venerated king who becomes a model of piety in the post-exilic period. The unity of the reigns of David-Solomon is intentionally demarcated from the rest of Chronicles by referring to YHWH's act of turning (DDÖ) the fortunes of Israel after the death of Saul and during the division of the kingdom. The two sections of the united monarchy under David-Solomon and the divided monarchy appear to be incompatible. For our purpose it is important to note that both rulers of the ideal period - David and Solomon - are allowed to serve at the altar. This is a very different approach from the one expressed with regard to the kings after the division. The story of Uzziah, who transgresses the competencies of the king in the sacral sphere, is a case in point. It would therefore be a serious mistake to draw any conclusions about issues concerning the united monarchy based on observations from the history of the divided kingdom, and vice versa. Thus, the fate of Uzziah cannot serve as a pattern for King-Temple relations during the united monarchy, just as David's assistance at the liturgical celebration when the Ark is brought to Jerusalem, or Solomon's acting as a priest during the ceremony of the dedication of the Temple bear no relevance for the kings after the division. The incompatibility of the two sections is, in addition to all this, displayed by a different role for the Levitical singers/prophets before and after the division. While during the reign of DavidSolomon they are only mentioned in connection with the cultic praise, from the reign of Rehoboam onwards their main task is to warn. Palace-Temple relations in Chronicles are presented within a larger framework: Dynasty - Temple - Land - 'All Israel' dominated by relations between Dynasty and Temple. 'All Israel' is a characteristic feature of Chronicles, and it is interesting if compared to Ezra-Nehemiah. A vivid example can be provided by comparing the lists of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah respectively. According to Neh 11:4 the inhabitants consisted of "some of the Judahites and of the Benjaminites", in contrast to 1 Chron 9:3, which speaks about "some of the people of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh". The 'inclusiveness' of Chronicles is as characteristic as the 'exclusiveness' of Ezra-Nehemiah. After the division of the kingdom the given framework undergoes a considerable transformation. The destinies of the Davidic dynasty and the Temple are conditioned by the keeping of the Law which, in turn, assumes humbling one's self before God, prayer, seeking YHWH's face, and turning away from wicked ways. These are the conditions for YHWH's dwelling in His sanctuary and blessing His people, since the Law is at the heart of the Temple in Chronicles. I thus examined the relations between kingship and Temple by tracing how these issues are applied to the rules of the individual Davidic kings.

Composition in Chronicles

75

The conclusion of Chronicles is open and depends on whether we take v. 21, with a combined allusion to Jeremiah and Lev 26, as the original ending or whether the decree of Cyrus in vv. 22-23 is taken as the wrapping up of the whole story. The presence of the newly-rebuilt Temple gains its full significance only after the recognition that it was originally designed in the context of the Davidic monarchy and a united Israel. The Solomonic Age which is depicted as an ideal therefore represents an actual program for Israel. The question which naturally emerges in this context is: what is the relation of this approach to the 'Law of the King' in Deut 17 on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to the older messianic prophecies? Both, in their own way, construct their respective messages as reactions to the kingship of Solomon. This will be examined in further detail in the following chapter.

3. The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

3.1 The judicial context of the 'Law of the King' (Deut 16:18-20; 17:8-13) in its relation to Chronicles The ' L a w of the King' in Deut 17:14-20 is a part of a larger section (16:18-18:22) prescribing different institutions designed to administer Israel's political and religious life. This, in turn, is closely related to the Chronicler's account of the reform of King Jehoshaphat in 2 Chron 19:4-11. Comparing both traditions, w e can extract the following information:

Deuteronomy

Chronicles

You shall appoint judges and officials (rrHitPl D'DQttO throughout your tribes, in all your towns ... (16:18)

He appointed judges (!TDQtt>') in the land in all the fortified cities of Judah ( r r m a n m i r r 'nv-Vsa), city by city (19:5)

8

10

If a judicial decision (JiDtCbV "DT) is too difficult for you ... go up to the place that the LORD your God will choose, go up to the place that the LORD your God will choose, 9 where ... you shall consult (1С'"П) with the levitical priests (Q'lVn П'ЗПЭП) and the judge (üDIC'n) who is in office in those days; they shall announce to you the decision in the case (17:8-9)

whenever a case comes to you from your kindred who live in their cities ... 8 in Jerusalem Jehoshaphat appointed certain Levites (Q'lVrrfÜ) and priests (П'ЗПЭП) and heads of families of Israel (Vxn&'V ГЛЗХП 'ϊΛΟΏ), to give judgment for the LORD and to decide disputed cases (19:8, 10)

Amariah the chief priest (ΙΛΠΠ |ПЭ) is over you in all matters of the LORD ... Zebadiah son of Ishmael, the governor (ТЛЗП) of the house of Judah in all the king's matters; and the Levites will serve you as officers (СГШ0(19:11).

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

77

According to the Deuteronomic Law, legal cases should normally be judged locally in every town at its regional gate by judges and officials (ΠΉϋΦ'Ί D't^Sty"). Exceptions to this are extraordinary cases of criminal and civil law (Deut 17:8) when a lawsuit is administered by the central tribunal consisting of an appointed judge and Levitical priests as a 'collective body'. 1 The judicial reform of Jehoshaphat paints a somewhat different picture. Lawsuits are normally administered locally as well, but in this case it is in "all the fortified cities of Judah" only, and only by judges (2 Chron 19:5). As with the Deuteronomic Law, all disputed cases ( T V ^ D ) from the provincial courts are supposed to be referred to the central court in Jerusalem (cf. 2 Chron 19:10).2 The court is administered by Levites priests (ЕПЛЭЛ), and heads of the families of Israel ГЛПХЛ •Ί^ΧΊ) in contrast to the appointed judge (ϋΏΦΤΙ) and Levitical priests (•''Ч'гЛ ЕПЛЭЛ) of Deuteronomy. Finally, Deuteronomy makes no explicit distinction between matters of YHWH and matters of the king which, on the other hand, is found in Chronicles as an important issue since they are meant to be administered by different institutions i.e. by the chief priest ОУ'ХПЛ }ЛЭ) and the civil governor ( Т Ш ) respectively (2 Chron 19:11). The aforementioned differences complicate the issue of mutual relations between the two traditions. One possible explanation for this has been proposed by Whitelam.3 Whitelam argues for the historicity of the tradition preserved in Chronicles by comparing the different biblical evidence for judicial systems of the united and divided kingdoms.4 The former is documented in the texts of 2 Sam 15 and 1 Kings 3, both of which presuppose the judicial authority entirely in the hands of King David and King Solo-

As follows from the plural form of the statement: "they (levitical priests and the judge who is in office in those days) shall announce to you the decision in the case" (Deut 17:9), cf. D.L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1—21:9, revised (WBC 6A; Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), 374. 2 The MT of 2 Chron 19:8 reads: "in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the LORD, and for controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem (•Vtt'lT The more probable reading is offered in LXX: ... καΐ κρίυειυ τούς κατοικοΰυτας fev Ιερουσαλήμ (and to judge the dwellers in Jerusalem) which presupposes a different vocalization of the same consonantal text in addition to the common emendation o f ! for ' i.e. m W l m V ] for Ό®'·' 'ЗЛУ] - П У ^ Т Ό®''' 'З'ПУ] (for disputes of the dwellers of Jerusalem), cf. the apparatus criticus of BHS. 3 K.W. Whitelam, The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 12; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1979), 187-191. 4 Unlike W.F. Albright, "The Judicial Reform of Jehoshaphat", in S. Lieberman (ed.), Alexander Marx: Jubilee volume on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950) 61-82, on p. 78, and G.Ch. Macholz, "Zur Geschichte der Justizorganisation in Juda", ZAW 84 (1972) 314-40, on p. 332, both arguing on the basis of archaeological evidence of the reforms of Haremhab (14th century ВСЕ) preserved at a stela in the Karnak Temple.

78

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

mon respectively.5 This picture changes when we move to the period of the divided monarchy witnessed in our case by the prophetic activity of Isaiah in the south and Micah in the north, both in the eighth century ВСЕ. 6 Both prophets protest against the lack of justice, while their complaints are addressed not directly to the king, but rather to the judges and leaders of the people.7 The administration of justice seems to have been performed by judges (D^UD^)8, royal princes (ΠΉ&>)9 and various leaders of the people фтйР З р У ГРЗ ЧР'Ш; DV 4j?T).10 A similar picture can is further on drawn in the description of the trial of Jeremiah, brought about by his speech in the Temple (Jer 26). 10 When the officials of Judah (mUT 'ItC") heard these things, they came up from the king's house to the house of the LORD and took their seat in the entry of the New Gate of the house of the LORD. 11 Then the priests (П'ЗГОП) and the prophets (ГГХЗЗП) said to the officials (П'П&Л) and to all the people (ПУГГ^О) ... 12 Then Jeremiah spoke to all the officials (D'liPrrVs) and all the people (DVrrVs), saying ... (Jer 26:10-12).

The trial is presided over by ΓΠΊΓΡ ΉΪΡ who come from the royal Palace (cf. v. 10) along with ПУГГ^Э while •''ЗПЭП and •''ХПЗЛ figure together as the accusers of Jeremiah (cf. w . 11-12). In the case of DVn_t7D, it is quite obvious that the phrase must refer to the various leaders of the people rather than to an assembly of the whole people.11 Given this, we find a judicial administration which is consonant with the one arising from the Jehoshaphat reform described in Chronicles12 which, in turn, shows that there is no compelling reason to deny the historicity of the Chronicler's account. At the same time, the judicial reform cannot be an outcome of the reform of Josiah since it has already been registered by the prophets in the eighth century ВСЕ. However, one important question still remains: Why has the story of the reform been omitted from the Dtr account of Jehoshaphat? Whitelam attempts to reply to this by arguing that the account was intentionally removed from its real historical setting because for Deuteronomy Moses is the only mediator through whom YHWH's Laws are presented to The apparent refusal of the King to delegate the exercise of his judicial authority is one of the underlying reasons for Absalom's rebellion against David (2 Sam 15:2-5) while in the case of Solomon there is the revelation in Gibeon which is explicitly interpreted in a juridical sense (1 Kings 3:9-10), cf. Whitelam, Just King, 188. 6 Whitelam, Just King, 189. 7 Isa 1:21-26; 3:2-3, 14; Mic 3:1-2, 9-11; 7:3 8 Isa 1:26; 3:2; 7:3, cf. Whitelam, Just King, 189. 9 Isa 1:23; 3:14; Mic 7:3, cf. Whitelam, Just King, 189. 10 Isa 3:14 (П5? ЧрТ); Mic 3:1, 9 (^ХПйР ГРЗ ' r X j ? ; З р У П ' З ' ϊ Λ Ο ; П2? 'ЗрТ), cf. Whitelam, Just King, 189. 11 Whitelam, Just King, 189. 12 Whitelam, Just King, 189.

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

79

Israel (cf. Deut 1:17; 4:1-2). It has therefore been theologically impossible for the Dtr historian to attribute a judicial reform to Jehoshaphat. This may also be the reason why the Chronicler included it in a slightly altered form, i.e. in more generalized terms, in the framework of the account of the Mosaic legislation in Deut 16:18-20 and 17:8-13. This generalization of the Dtr historian can be seen in line with the depiction of the reform in Deuteronomy in the later, more developed stage following Josiah's reform.13 This would also explain the presence of ΠΉϋΦΊ D^UDt^ in the local courts in Deut 16:18, instead of •''ϋΏΦ' only in 2 Chron 19:5, thereby representing a less developed stage of administration.14 In the case of the text of Exod 18, describing the distribution of powers during the Mosaic period and related to Deut 1:9-18, Whitelam appears to accept the proposal of Knierim that Exod 18 was designed to serve as an aetiological explanation for, and legitimization of, Jehoshaphat's reform.15 The conclusions adduced above have been more recently challenged by Knoppers.16 He denies the historicity of the Chronicler's account of Jehoshaphat's reform,17 and argues that Exod 18 and Deut 16:18-20; 17:8-13 serve as source material for the Chronicler. Knoppers' argument is exclusively of literary character, using analysis of the phraseology, syntax and style of 2 Chron 19:4b—11 in its wider context. Knoppers then shows that the Chronicler's description of the Jehoshaphat reform reflects the Chronicler's active hand, as well as his ideology. The account is thus heavily shaped by the author and his cliches appear in both the description of the reforms and the citation of Jehoshaphat's speeches.18 The view that the reforms depicted reveal an underlying source, is therefore implausible, as well as the contention that they precede and explain Exod 18:13-27 and

Whitelam, Just King, 192. The secondary nature of Deut 16:18-18:20 is supported by the 'historicizing' shape of the whole section, in which the stipulations follow one another without sufficient definition of the office and authority which are assumed behind them. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that they function, in the present form, as a constitutional text, cf. L. Perlitt, "Der Staatsgedanke im Deuteronomium", in S.E. Balentine/J. Barton (ed.), Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) 182-98, on pp. 186-7. 14 Whitelam, Just King, 198. 15 R. Knierim, "Exodus 18 und die Neuordnung der mosaischen Gerichtsbarkeit", ZAW1Ъ (1961) 146-171, on p. 167; cf. Whitelam, Just King, 191. 16 G.N. Knoppers, "Jehoshaphat's Judiciary and 'the Scroll of YHWH's Torah'", JBL 113 (1994) 59-80. 17 By this he resumed the old position of J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885 [German original, 1882]), 191, who rejected the possibility that the judiciary system of Jehoshaphat, as presented in Chronicles, could be traced back to antiquity. The reason why Jehoshaphat is selected for this role lies simply in his name "JHWH is judge". 18 Knoppers, "Judiciary", 68-70.

80

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

Deut 16:18-20, 17:8-13. 19 On the contrary, Knoppers in his comparison of the relevant texts under five rubrics - occasion (context), structure, officials (titles), function and paraenesis - argues that the Chronicler's presentation is indebted to the judicial traditions in Exodus and Deuteronomy, and not vice versa.20 What is then the aim of the Chronicler's composition? In contrast to Wellhausen, who took the account of 2 Chron 19:4b—11 as a mere expansion on Jehoshaphat's name, Knoppers replies that it aims to react against the Deuteronomic restrictions upon the royal prerogative in the judicial sphere, since the author's standpoint is clearly monarchical. 21 The problem with Knoppers' analysis is that he entirely overlooks the comparison with the judicial administration established by David. 1 Chron 26:29-32, which is concerned with the appointment of the Levites for this purpose. 29 Of the Izharites, Chenaniah and his sons were appointed to outside duties (ЛШТ1Л HDNVaV) for Israel as officers and judges (D'DQWYl ПП1®1?). 30 Of the Hebronites, Hashabiah and his brothers, one thousand seven hundred men of ability, had the oversight of Israel west of the lordan for all the work of the LORD and for the service of the king ("[Van mavVl m r r rnxVa W?). 31 Of the Hebronites, Jerijah was chief of the Hebronites. (In the fortieth year of David's reign search was made, of whatever genealogy or family, and men of great ability among them were found at Jazer in Gilead.) 32 King David appointed him and his brothers, two thousand seven hundred men of ability, heads of families (ΠΌΧΠ 'tC'XI), 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 ("[^ЙЛ "DT П'Л^ХЛ - O T W ? ) (l Chron 26:29-32).

The Levitical family of Izrahites is "appointed to outside duties for Israel" (l Chron 26:29) as D^DttTl Dnüttf (officers and judges).22 On the other hand, the Levitical family of the Hebronites is appointed for matters relating to the king as well as for the matters concerning YHWH in the territory west of the Jordan, but also in the Transjordan area of the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of the Manassites.23

Knoppers, "Judiciary", 71. Knoppers, "Judiciary", 71-79. There is, however, an inconsistency in Knoppers' argument. On the one hand he argues that the Chronicler does not use a source for the account of the reform because the whole text evinces his unique style, but, on the other hand, he also argues that Exodus and Deuteronomy serve as his base texts. 21 Knoppers, "Judiciary", 73; cf. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 191. 22 The LXX variant for D'UitC'V is τοΰ γραμματεύειυ which corresponds to Q'lQDV in our phrase. 23 Both Izharites and Hebronites are descendants of Qohath, cf. Exod 6:18; Num 3:19, 27; 1 Chron 6:3; 23:12. The genealogy of Qohath is in 1 Chron 5:28-41 extended as far back as the time of the exile in v. 41, which gives evidence to their prominence. It is of importance that in Chronicles Aaron and Moses are traced as his descendants. 20

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

81

In the case of the Izrahites the precise meaning of the phrase Л31ХТ1Л л э г п ш in v. 29 is difficult to determine. The context of the whole of 1 Chron 23-26 is the organization of the Temple personnel for the service,24 so it is quite likely that the phrase "outside duty" refers to some kind of administration outside the Temple (cf. Neh 11:16) rather than to an administration of areas of the kingdom outside Jerusalem.25 If so, it should be viewed in its context in relation to ГЛГР ΠDX^Q andDVrtWT "QT of w . 30, 32. Supposedly, the intention of the author is to set the activities of the Izharites and the Hebronites as complementary. Therefore, Π312ΤΙΠ of the Izrahites cannot refer to the administration of supplies and tithes for the Temple, as it does in Neh 11:16,26 because the family of Hebronites has certainly already been charged with this task, referring to it as ΠΊΠ1 ΓϋίόΏ and ЕГЛ^ХЛ ""•Τ Moreover, it is specified in this case as a function of D^DttiH ΠΉϋΦ1 referring simply to a secular activity. The picture we gain with this understanding is that the Izrahite family is in charge of the judicial authority in all Israel, while the family of Hebronites is in charge of the supervision affairs pertaining to the Palace and the Temple, in the whole territory of Israel. Since there is no judicial administration appointed especially to Jerusalem, David's sole authority can be assumed in his city. The comparison with the reform of Jehoshaphat displays significant differences. For our present concern only several of such differences of them would be sufficient to assume the following: judges serve in the administration together with officers in all Israel, which is consonant with Deut 16:18, but different from 2 Chron 19:5, where it is restricted to judges and the fortified cities only. David is careful to appoint his administrators from the specific Levitical families - Izrahites and Hebronites - unlike Jehoshaphat for whom it is not a matter of concern. The Levites are in his judicial system confined to the central court of Jerusalem, while in the judicial system of David they are appointed in all Israel. Most importantly, although

The heading of 1 Chron 27:1 clearly delimits 26:29-32 from the following list of twelve divisional commanders (27:2-15) which would introduce a change in subject matter. 25 Pace G.N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10—29. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York/London: Doubleday, 2004), 876. The final implication of my following consideration is consistent with Knoppers' understanding οίΓΠΊ^ΤΙΠ ЛЭХ^ЙЛ i.e. that it refers to the judicial administration in Israel, presumably out of Jerusalem. However, as I suggested, I do not consider it as a direct meaning of the phrase as Knoppers does. 26 Cf. Neh 10:38-40 [ET 10:37-39]. The text of Neh 1 1 : 1 6 - "Shabbethai and Jozabad, the Levitical leaders responsible for work outside the Temple of God" (QTlVX ГРЭ^ ПЛХ'ПП ЛЭХ^ЙЛ) remains in contrast to "Seraiah son of Hilkiah son of Meshullam son of Zadok son of Meraioth son of Ahitub, officer of the house of God, and their associates who did the work of the house" ( r m V ЛЭХ^ЙЛ) (Neh 11:11-12), cf. H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, (WBC 16; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), 352.

82

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

David's administration explicitly distinguishes between the affairs of the King and those of YHWH, both are administered by his civil Levitical servants. This is in sharp contrast to the division of the competencies for sacral and secular spheres in Jehoshaphat's judicial system (cf. 2 Chron 19:11). It goes against the ideology of the Chronicler to present any reform of David's administration, all the more so by the king (although he is pious), from the period of the divided monarchy. The pious monarchs who follow the division of the kingdom are considered as blessed according to of the success of their adoption to the measures of David and Solomon. If they do assume the qualities of the two kings they are rewarded with prosperity, building activity, victory in warfare, popular support etc.27 Furthermore, during important cultic occasions it is always stressed that the divisions of the priests and Levites are appointed according to the ordinances of David (cf. 2 Chron 8:14; 23:18; 29:25 etc.). This again shows that what was established during the period of the united monarchy serves as a model for the kings after the division. It is therefore highly uncharacteristic for the Chronicler to allow Jehoshaphat to reorganize the Davidic administration without even referring to David. There are two possible ways to explain this inconsistency. First, 1 Chron 26:29-32 is a part of a larger addition to the original corpus (1 Chron 23-27), not necessarily corresponding in detail to the other texts. Second, the account of Jehoshaphat's administration draws on an underlying source, supplementing from it the information that is missing in Dtr, while at the same time incorporating the Chronicler's own theology and language. The former suggestion, apart from our present context, has been defended by such scholars as Noth, Rudolph, Willi, Mosis, Braun, Welten, but was on the other hand judged by other scholars as an unnecessary solution to the given problems.28 The repetition in 23:2 and 28:1 is more likely a literary tool than a 'resumptive repetition,' marking intrusive material in between. Some inconsistencies, between the material in the chapters 23-27 and the other texts in Chronicles, can more plausibly be explained by the redactional layer(s) within these chapters29 rather than by the intrusion of

Dillard, Chronicles, 78, recognized by Knoppers himself: "[...] David and Solomon set the benchmark against which later monarchs are evaluated", cf. Knoppers, Chronicles 10-29, 795. 28 Cf. Williamson, Chronicles, 157-78; De Vries, Chronicles, 186-215; J.W. Wright, "The Legacy of David in Chronicles: The Narrative function of 1 Chron 23-27", JBL 110 (1991) 229-42. Japhet, Chronicles, 406-11; W.M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (JSOTSup 197; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 165-70; Knoppers, Chronicles 10-29, 788-98. 29 Especially Williamson, Chronicles, 157-78; there is no reason to consider 1 Chron 26:29-32 as redactional within the chapters 23-26.

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

83

the whole block into the text. The result of the considerations presented above is that in the Chronicler's account of Jehoshaphat's reform we probably witness a composition which uses an underlying source, but is at the same time overwritten by the author in his own language and in accordance with his own theology. On the basis of Knoppers' analysis, it is certainly not easy to view an underlying source behind the account of 2 Chron 19:4-11. However, considering the abovementioned facts, it is even more difficult to view 2 Chron 19:4-11 as merely the invention of the Chronicler. Given this, the judicial system of Deut 16:18-20; 17:8-13 is considered to be of a secondary character in relation to the system of Jehoshaphat. The distinction in competencies in secular and sacral spheres, as presented in 2 Chron 19:11, is fully in line with the postexilic ideology,30 and are therefore not a part of the source material. The mentioned distinction rather defines the author's own approach, which is entirely consistent with the ideology of Chronicles. After the division of the kingdom the Palace and the Temple can no longer be seen as one body, as was the case during the golden age of the united monarchy.

3.2 The 'Law of the King' (Deut 17:14-20) and its relation to Chronicles Contrary to what we would normally expect of an oriental ruler, and as opposed to what we encounter in 1 Chron 26:20-32 and 2 Chron 19:4-11, in Deuteronomy's understanding power is not concentrated under the king's jurisdiction. Significantly, it is distributed among several authorities: judges, king, Temple priesthood and prophets while the competences are attributed to the offices in order to create balance in their authority.31 As for the king's functions, only one duty is mentioned: to copy the Torah, study it and keep its commandments in order to become a model Israelite.32 The king is bound by the same law as the whole nation, and can seemingly not change its regulations (cf. Deut 13:1). Compared, for example, to the code

30

Cf. Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:1, 4; Zech 3:1, 8; 4:12-14; 6:13; Ezra 2:2; 3:6-13; 5:1-2; Neh 7:7. N. Lohfink, "Distribution of the Functions of Power: The Laws Concerning Public Offices in Deuteronomy 16:18-18:22", in D.L. Christensen (ed.), A Song of Power and the Power of Song. Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993) 337-352, on p. 349. 32 Lohfink, "Distribution", 349. The allusion to ΠΝΤΠ ГП1ЛП by the King appears before Moses has even finished his speech, cf. Perlitt, "Staatsgedanke", 190, referring to this observation already made by J. Wellhausen, Die Komposition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 2 1889), 192. 31

84

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

of Hammurapi, in which the king serves as the promulgator of the legal code, we here find a fundamentally different approach. 33 The very fact that an emphasis is put on what is prohibited to the king, and that an explicit reference to his executive power is entirely missing from the Law, reveals the author's theocratic ideal. This omission further reflects an ambivalent attitude towards the existence of a monarchy in Israel.34 On the other hand, the Law of the King may here take into consideration the dynastic promise of the enduring kingdom (v. 20b), although Deut 17:14-20 does in no way present the highlight of the dynastic promise - an attitude of the Temple towards the King. The most obvious and important difference between the 'Law of the King' and the law concerning other institutions is that the former is the only one which is not directly mandated by the will of God, but is rather determined by the will of the nation following its entrance to the Promised Land. 14 When you have come (ХЗГГ'Э) into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me", 15 you may indeed set over you a king ("|Vü "pVv Π'ίΡΠ ΠΙίΡ) whom the LORD your God will choose. One of your own community you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your own community (Deut 17:14-15).

Vv. 14-15 forms a syntactical unit in which v. 15 is an apodosis to the preceding text of v. 14. The particle Ό introduces the circumstance of entering the land, as elsewhere in Deuteronomy (Deut 6:10; 18:9; 26:1),35 while the infinitive absolute D^tyfl П11У in this case strengthens the modal nuance of can/may.36 Therefore, according to Deuteronomy kingship is not considered as an institution which is immanent to Israel, but as one which is only allowed following the entrance into the Land.37 A similar approach is dis33 S.D. McBride, "Polity of the Covenant People: The Book of Deuteronomy", Int 41 (1987) 229-44, on p. 241, believes that, also according to Deuteronomy, the King is supposed to function as the national 'judge' who convenes or sits with the juridical council of Levitical priests (17:9-12), and is therefore implicitly involved in the official interpretation of the Law as well as in its enforcement. 34 Deut 17:14-20 is out of relation with ^ Й П ÜÖtCb or ЛЭ^ЙЛ ÜÖtCb of 1 Sam 8:9, 11; 10:25, cf. S.R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary to Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895), 210. 35 Driver, Deuteronomy, 210.

36

As in Gen 2:16 ("?ЭХП VDN "you may eat"), 43:7 (5ПЗ 2ЛТЛ "could we in any way

know?") JM § 1131; 123h. This is also the understanding of Josephus {Ant 4.223), while Philo {De Specialibus Legibus 4.157) quotes v. 15 as a commandment, cf. W. Horbury, "Monarchy and Messianism in the Greek Pentateuch", in M.A. Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism (BETL 195; Leuven, 2006) 79-128, on p. 96. 37 Later in the Hellenistic period, the works of Demetrius the Chronographer and Eupolemus, provide us with evidence for the fact that the history of the Jews is viewed as the history of the monarchy from the time of Moses onwards, cf. Horbury, "Monarchy", 83.

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

85

cernible in Dtr, although in this case settlement on the Land does not serve as a marker for the possibility of a monarchy. The first man to stand at the head of the entire nation in the Deut-Dtr corpus is Moses, the chosen mediator: 26 For who is there of all flesh that has heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and remained alive? 27 Go near, you yourself, and hear all that the LORD our God will say. Then tell us everything that the LORD our God tells you, and we will listen and do it. 28 The LORD heard your words when you spoke to me, and the LORD said to me: ... 30 Go say to them, 'Return to your tents.' 31 But you, stand here by me, and I will tell you all the commandments, the statutes and the ordinances, that you shall teach them, so that they may do them in the land that I am giving them to possess (Deut 5:26-28, 30).

Before his death Moses transfers the leadership to Joshua. Both Moses and Joshua can be designated as rulers, but after Joshua we no longer encounter a similar transition of rulership. The book of Judges which stands as a continuation of that history simply registers a discontinuity by stating that after the generation attached to Joshua, comes another generation that "did not know YHWH or the work that he had done for Israel" (Judg 2:10). This marks the beginning of the period of Judges, in which the only attempt to appoint a ruler over Israel fails because Gideon, who is approached to this end, refers to YHWH as the only ruler: 22 Then the Israelites said to Gideon, "Rule over us ("iwVtib), you and your son and your grandson also; for you have delivered us out of the hand of Midian." 23 Gideon said to them, "I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the LORD will rale over you (ПЭЙ Vwb' ΠΙΠ')" (Judg 8:22-23).

The period of Judges continues until the time of Samuel, in which he is asked by the people to break this chain and crown a king to rule according to the example of other nations. This transition is, according to the final redactor of 1 Sam, anything but natural for Israel, as it is regarded as a rejection of YHWH's kingship.38 7 and the LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them." (1 Sam 8:7).

In spite of the framing of the text of 1 Sam 8 with a positive attitude to kingship in vv. 1—5 and 22b — which are ascribed by T. Veijola, Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomischen Historiographie (AASF Series В 198; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakademia, 1977), 53-72, to a different redaction from that of w . 6-22a - an overall impression offered by a synchronic reading is a negative approach to kingship. On the other hand, it had not always been read so in antiquity; cf. the approach of Demetrius and Eupolemus, n. 37.

86

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

In addition to the similarity between Deut and Dtr in their approach to kingship we also find significant differences. These differences are evident in the actions of David and Solomon against the 'Law of the King', but also in the distribution of the competences in the broader scope of the corpus of the Deuteronomic constitution (16:18-18:22). For our purpose of showing the contrasts between the Deuteronomic and the Deuteronomistic approaches, it would be sufficient to briefly discuss Solomon's rule, which is the most important one in this regard. Starting with the first comparison, an accumulation of royal wealth, wives, and horses is strictly banned in the 'Law of the King': 16 Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself, or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the LORD has said to you, "You must never return that way again." 17 And he must not acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; also silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself (Deut 17:16-17).

Of the three, the approach to wealth and horses is by no means consistent with such texts as 1 Kings 3:13; 10:23-29 or 5:6-8, in which they appear as a sign of Solomon's divine blessing.39 The situation differs only in relation to the stipulation concerning wives in v. 17. The text of the verse is composed in a concentric form: •7XQ f r - n n v xV a n n ηοοι - m n V n o * KVI -ЕПР'З ft-mT KVI The possibility of 'turning away of the king's heart' is placed at the centre of the whole statement as a consequence of what is stated before (multiplying of wives) and after it (multiplying of wealth), at the same time serving as an explanation of the ban on such 'activities'. Thus we have the same rationale for the ban on accumulating wealth and wives, while the outstanding one is the prohibition on amassing horses. Moreover, in the case of horses and wealth we observe that, differently from the 'Law of the King' and YHWH's request not to return to Egypt, Dtr does not consider Solomon's import of horses from Egypt as a real danger to Israel (cf. 1 Kings 10:28-29), nor does he take the accumulation of wealth as a threat to the king's loyalty to YHWH (1 Kings 10:14-25, 27).40 The only thing that

G.N. Knoppers, "Deuteronomist and Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship", ZAWl 08 (1996) 329-46, on pp. 337-8. 40 As for the attitude towards the 'Law of the King' in Deut 17:14-20 and Dtr, in terms of diachronic priority various proposals were offered without reaching a final consensus. The two binary solutions are those of B. Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 225-33, and Perlitt, "Staatsgedanke", 182-98. While the former links the text to the inception of the monarchy, the latter argues for the composition of Dtr after the fall of the Kingdom of Judah.

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

87

matters in this regard is the accumulation of wives as described in 1 Kings 11, constituting the only link to Deuteronomy's 'Law of the King'. 41 The second point in addition to the 'Law of the King' itself is the Dtr narrative which is placed against the careful distribution of authority in the rest of the code of Deut 16:18-18:22. This distribution presupposes that the king would have been criticized for his involvement in the cultic sphere, i.e. in appointing or dismissing priests, offering sacrifices, or in leading the people in the celebration of major religious feasts. What we observe is, however, the opposite: all the activities mentioned are recorded by Dtr without a marked critical tone,42 thus moving Dtr's narrative of the kingship of Solomon closer to the ANE royal ideology.43 Knoppers' claim, that an implicit revision of the Deuteronomic agenda for a distribution of power is provided in Dtr by commending the linkage between the Jerusalem Temple cult and the Davidic dynasty as providential,44 therefore seems justified. The attitude of the Palace towards the Temple is demonstrably a much used criterion for the evaluation of monarchs45 and, in turn, reveals the dynastic promise of 2 Sam 7 as the pivotal axis of the Dtr history of kingship. While in Dtr the monarchy is viewed as central only from a certain point onwards, we have already seen that the dynastic promise can be viewed as the focal point for the whole of Chronicles. That promise represents the monarchy as an institution immanent to Israel, an approach that is not consistent with the Dtr history. By incorporating the genealogical material of Ρ into his historical account, the Chronicler traces the monarchy of Israel to the beginnings of the nation.46 This is in accordance with the Mesopotamian Knoppers, "Law of the King", 343-44, claims that Dtr's approach to the King's wives is different from that of Deut 17, as the number of wives is not a serious matter for the former: "exogamy and not polygamy is the Deuteronomist's concern", p. 343. It is not so plain in the case of Solomon, however. The very first information of 1 Kings 11, which deals with his wives is that the King "loved many foreign women" (v. 1), and the message of the v. 3 possibly links the amount of wives with the turning away of the King's heart: "Among his wives were (EW3 IV" ' Π Ι ) seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart ТЧС'З 1D,-1)." From a syntactic viewpoint the ' Π Ι ... wayyiqtol sequence may point to a frequentative meaning in the past in this case, cf. JM § 118n, although 'ΓΡΙ here is only used as a part of the phrase i V ' T P I "he had", and, therefore, not in its proper sense. Yet, the context which is decisive in these cases would favour such interpretation. It would bind v. 3a and 3b in a protasis (3a) - apodosis (3b) structure with the meaning that the repeated failure of Solomon's religious loyalty has been caused by his great amount of foreign wives. The presence of a large number of women is the case here and not just the fact that they are of non-Israelite origin. 42 2 Sam 6:17-18; 8:17-18; 20:25-26; 24:25; 1 Kings 2:26-27, 35; 3:4, 15; 8:62-64, 65; 9:25; 2 Kings 23:21-23, Knoppers, "Law of the King", 336. 43 Knoppers, "Law of the King", 341-42. 44 Knoppers, "Law of the King", 345. 45 Knoppers, 'Law of the King', 345. 46 Not the Ρ theology of kingship which is traced back to Abraham as its forefather (cf. Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11-12). There is no sign of such a link between Abraham and the kingship in the

88

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

approach to kingship, as can be discerned from the list of Sumerian kings. In the Sumerian account the kingship is first "lowered from heaven" in Eridu, and then continues to exist in subsequent dynasties. Accordingly, the kingship in Mesopotamia was considered as a constant feature of society.47 In Chroniclers the same message is expressed through a different arrangement. The promise of the everlasting Davidic dynasty connected with the building of the Temple is, in the beginning, not represented as a heavenly gift, but rather stands at the centre as the Archimedean point of the whole account of the history of Israel. The history progresses from the beginning of mankind towards its destination - the dynastic promise to David and Solomon, and then unfolds as an expansion of it. Their kingship is anchored in heaven as is plainly shown by the association of the Davidic kingdom with the kingdom of God (1 Chron 28:5; 29:11; 2 Chron 13:8), and, most importantly, by stressing that the throne of David-Solomon is the throne of YHWH at the same time (1 Chron 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron 9:8), all in texts without parallel in Dtr. It is important to note that in spite of the information provided in 2 Chron 13:8, that the Davidic kingdom does not cease to be the kingdom of God after the division, its kings no longer sit on the throne of YHWH; that privileged position is reserved for David and Solomon only. Such an exclusive prerogative of the reign of David-Solomon must, I believe, be understood as an expression of the Chronicler's conviction that only the monarchy as a united entity of the whole of Israel is intended by YHWH in the dynastic promise. After the division it is only maintained because of the promise made to David (cf. 2 Chron 21:7). So far we can assert that in Chronicles we encounter a deliberate universalistic approach which associates the David-Solomon's kingship with the concept of kingship presented in the Sumerian king list.48 Furthermore, Chronicles harmonizes the universalistic program of the post-exilic messianic prophecy with the history of Israel in order to show that Israel, from its inception, is intended for such a premeditated future. Only in such terms can the book be viewed as messianic.

Chroniclers' genealogies. In the narrative corpus the Abrahamic covenant is complementary to the dynastic promise to David. 47 A.F. Campbell, 1 Samuel (FOTL 7; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 85; H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods. A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 41962), 3. 48 The omission of the exodus and pre-monarchic period from Chronicles is more fundamental than merely an expression of the continuous possession of the Land.

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

89

3.3 The A N E view of kingship elaborated by the Chronicler for Israel The method of 're-arrangement' by which the Chronicler renders a message of the underlying ANE source has already been used by the Priestly author^). It has long been recognized that in the beginning of the literary strand - the story of the creation - lies a creative re-elaboration of the Babylonian epic of Enuma Elis49 which is recited in Mesopotamia at the New Year's festival as late as the Seleucid period.50 In the Babylonian epic of the creation of the world (IV:135-V:66), Marduk's plan to build a temple as a resting place for him as king as well as for other gods (V:l 17-130), the creation of humanity (VI: 1-34) and construction of the Esagila temple (VI:61-66) are all subsequent events and all take place in primeval history. The building of the temple is the climax of that creation story and is executed by the gods. In P, however, only the creation of the world and humanity belong to this period, leaving the story of the construction of the sanctuary to the historical Mosaic period.51 YHWH's intimate relationship with Israel when he descends to dwell in its sanctuary is thus claimed to have its foundation in the creation of the world, which, in turn, becomes a part of the history of the nation.52 Hurowitz, in his comparison of parallel expressions in the Biblical and Mesopotamian building accounts, has also shown that it is a portrayal of creation in terms of building, and not the building of a sanctuary as an imitation of the creation.53 The links between the creation and the construction of the sanctuary are as follows:54

A more detailed elaboration on the Babylonian Epic of Creation as a background to Genesis is undertaken by W.G. Lambert, "A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis", JTS 16 (1965) 287-300. 50 Cf. ANET, 331-4. 51 Building of the sanctuary by God is in the Hebrew theology confined to the Psalm tradition: Ps 78:69; cf. 127:1 (cf. Ps 147:2 where YHWH is a builder of Jerusalem). 52 Eckart Otto similarly observes: "The kerygma of the Priestly Code was the idea that YHWH's inhabitation in the midst of his people Israel was the purpose of the creation of the world and, as the primeval story in Gen 1 - 1 1 showed, also of the world history of the nations", cf. E. Otto, "The Pentateuch in Synchronical and Diachronical Perspectives", in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomischen Geschichtswerk, Ε. Otto and R. Achenbach (ed.), (FRLANT 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004) 28-9. 53 Cf. V.A. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House. Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 235-42. Hurowitz writes the following: "The numerous biblical and extrabiblical texts containing the very expressions which link the Tabernacle and Creation stories show clearly that the natural habitat of such expressions is the building story", cf. p. 242. 54 The table is taken from Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 218.

90

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good (Gen 1:31).

And Moses did look upon all the work, and, behold, they had done it (Exod 39:43)

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished (Gen 2:1)

Thus was all the work of the tabernacle of the tent of the congregation finished (Exod 39:32)

God finished the work that he had done (Gen 2:2)

So Moses finished the work (Exod 40:33)

So God blessed the seventh day (Gen 2:3)

So Moses blessed them (Exod 39:43)

The universalistic aim of the arrangements by Ρ and Chronicles is plain enough, i.e. both are interested in the history of Israel as framed in a universal context. It is therefore not so surprising that in the Chronicler's account of the ideal period of the united monarchy we find certain themes which are common to the ANE ideology of kingship, but have no parallel in Dtr, or, at least, are more clearly emphasised in Chronicles: • • •

David as a King-Mediator Solomon as the son of God, who is tightly connected to the concept of a King- Temple Builder The heavenly throne of both David and Solomon.55

Only the reference to Solomon as the son of God has its counterpart in Dtr, but there it is only mentioned in the dynastic promise (2 Sam 7:14) without further elaboration elsewhere. In Chronicles, on the other hand, it is emphaApart from its connection with the ideology of the Sumerian king-list we can adduce the Assyrian enthronement ritual where it is stressed that Asshur is the real king, but the human king is allowed his place at the same time. From the prologue to the Code of Hammurapi cols. I - V it is equally clear that the real king of Babylonia is Marduk, while his human agent is permitted the title 'king of Babylon' as well, cf. J.J.M. Roberts, The Bible and the ancient Near East: collected essays (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 370. One further example is encountered in the text published by W.R. Mayer, "Ein Mythos von der Erschaffung des Menschen und des Königs", Or 56 (1987) 55-68, where the godess Belet-ill, who creates lullü (man) also creates after suggestion of Ea mäliku атё1и (human king). In addition to other gods who bestow various gifts on him, Anu gives him a crown, and Enlil his throne.

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

91

sised several times in David's speech to Solomon (1 Chron 22:10; 28:6, 9). All the motives mentioned are linked to the Temple. David's role as mediator is displayed in his revealing of the ГРЗПП of the future temple, and Solomon's status as the 'Son of God' is directly linked to his status as a King Temple Builder', as is the heavenly throne on which he is sits.56 12 He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. 13 1 will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you, 14 but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever (1 Chron 17:12-14).

In my opinion, another motif with a closer parallel to the ANE ideology, and one which is at the same time linked to the Temple, is the Ark of Covenant. In comparing the Dtr account on the Ark to the parallel pericope in Chronicles some new features emerge. The final part of the prayer of Solomon in 1 Kings 8:50-53 reads: 50 and forgive your people who have sinned against you, and all their transgressions that they have committed against you; and grant them compassion in the sight of their captors, so that they may have compassion on them 51 (for they are your people and heritage, which you brought out of Egypt, from the midst of the iron-smelter). 52 Let your eyes be open to the plea of your servant, and to the plea of your people Israel, listening to them whenever they call to you. 53 For you have separated them from among all the peoples of the earth, to be your heritage, just as you promised through Moses, your servant, when you brought our ancestors out of Egypt, О Lord GOD.

In the parallel 2 Chron 6:40-42 the different text is found which refers to Ps 132:8-10: 39 and forgive your people who have sinned against you. 40 Now, О my God, let your eyes be open and your ears attentive to prayer from this place. 41 "Now rise up, О LORD God, and go to your resting place, you and the ark of your might. Let your priests, О LORD God, be clothed with salvation, and let your faithful rejoice in your goodness. 42 О LORD God, do not reject your anointed one. Remember your steadfast love for your servant David."

The insertion of the quotation from Ps 132 instead of the exodus theme of 1 Kings makes the Ark of the Covenant a representative of the exodus tradition, but this change bears a more significant meaning here: it serves to declare that YHWH's presence in the Temple is identified with the Ark of the Covenant.57 This theologoumenon is more evident in the wider context of Solomon's prayer which, unlike 1 Kings 8, is in Chronicles delimited by the inclusio of 2 Chron 5:14 and 7:2: The unity of the David-Solomon kingship has already been discussed in Chapter 2.2. Hurowitz, Exalted, 268.

92

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

14 so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of God (2 Chron 5:14). 2 The priests could not enter the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD filled the LORD's house (2 Chron 7:2).

Since 2 Chron 7:2 almost directly follows the quotation of Ps 132, a strong presence of the Ρ theology of TDD, i.e. a representation of the visible manifestation of the invisible God, can be discerned in this case.58 As aforementioned, an outcome of this approach is the identification of the presence of the Ark with the presence of YHWH. The whole ceremony of bringing the Ark to the sanctuary is therefore, to a greater extent than in Dtr, aligned with the Mesopotamian accounts of the bringing of statues of gods to a restored temple. In the latter case, each narrative related to the dedication of a temple either mentions that the king brings a god into the temple and places him there, or that the god enters the temple.59 The situation in Chronicles is interesting in this regard, since, in addition to the presence of YHWH, the Ark is identified with the presence of the Law. In the Hellenistic period, as we are informed by the text of 1 Масс 3:48, the Torah serves the same purpose for Jews as an image of a god (ομοίωμα ειδώλου) outside of Israel60: And they opened the book of the law to inquire into those matters about which the Gentiles consulted the likenesses of their gods (τά όμοιώματα τώυ ειδώλων αίπώυ).

This verse is partly elucidated by the other text (2 Масс 8:23) in which the reading of the Torah is supposed to provide advice on the forthcoming battle. If this practice is already in use in the time of the Chronicler we would certainly expect the same procedure in the pericope of 2 Chron 20 where Judah assembles to seek help from YHWH (ΠΊΓΡΏ WpD1?) before a battle (v. 4). However, in this case the Torah is not even mentioned, and

Cf. Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 169. The phrase ГЛП , - ТПЭ does not belong to the language of the book of Kings and can only be found in this place. On the other hand, it is crucial in Ρ in connection with the foundation of the cult at Sinai (cf. Exod 24:16-17; 40:34-5; Lev 9:6, 23). The term 3D is unusual here and the only other case in the book of Kings is in 1 Kings 3:13 in relation to the 'honour' of Solomon as king, and thus with a completely different connotation. The author apparently combines different traditions here. 59 Hurowitz, Exalted, 272. 60 W. Hallo, "Texts, Statues and the Cult of the Divine King", in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986 (SVT 40; Leiden, New York, Kobenhavn, Köln: Brill, 1988) 55-66, on p. 64. According to J.A. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees: a new translation, with introduction and commentary (AB 41; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 261, the text of 1 Масс 3:48, is patterned after 2 Kings 19:14-19^sa 37:14-21. He writes: "Whereas Hezekiah used Sennacherib's letter to call attention to the contrast between the God of Israel and the gods of the pagans, Antiochus IV attempted to use the Torah to prove that illicit 'pagan' rites and deities belonged in the religion of Israel."

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

93

salvation is achieved by means of the cult and prophecy. An absence of Torah reading does not mean that the Law at the time of the Chronicler did not represent the presence of YHWH. On the contrary, the emphasis on the Ark narrative at the dedication of the Temple is precisely derived from the identification of the Ark with the Law. What can be inferred from the difference between Chronicles and Maccabees is a development of the stillincreasing role of the Law which in the case of 1 Масс 3:48 and 2 Масс 8:23 already presents the prophetic phenomenon in Israel. On the other hand, it is likely that in Chronicles the text of 1 Chron 28:8, in which David warns the Israelites: DDT^X ГПГР П1 Х й ^ Э ИУ'*П "search out all the commandments of the LORD your God", already points towards an understanding of the Law similar to that of the Torah in Maccabees. The verb 1У*П which is regularly employed in Chronicles for expressing divine inquiry and veneration61 stands here for the inquiry of the Law.62 One could vividly contrast this example with the case of Saul when "he had consulted a medium, seeking guidance, and did not seek guidance from the LORD" (Л17ГЗ tthTSVl ttftTft 31X3 VlXttfr) (1 Chron 10:13-14). From this follows that the Law is itself an object of religious devotion in 1 Chron 28:8, as it is in 2 Масс 8:23.63 We essentially encounter the same understanding of the Law - as an embodiment of the presence of YHWH - in the late Persian Chronicles as well as in the late Hellenistic Maccabees. Since there are a number of examples in the ANE sources in which the building of temples is related to divine rest,64 it would be tempting to search the ANE background influence behind the employment of the term ΠΊ3 in connection with the Ark. It occurs in the texts which are unique to Chronicles: 1 Chron 28:2, in the speech of David to Israel, and in 2 Chron 6:41 as a part of Solomon's prayer during the ceremony of the dedication of the Temple. Hear me, my brothers and my people. I had planned to build a house of rest (ПГПЗЙ ГРЭ) for the ark of the covenant of the LORD, for the footstool (ЭТП) of our God; and I made preparations for building (1 Chron 28:2). Now rise up, О LORD God, and go to your resting place ("|ГОЗ^), you and the ark of your might (2 Chron 6:41).

61

1 Chron 16:11 (= Ps 105:4); 22:19; 28:9; 2 Chron 12:14; 14:3, 6; 15:12; 16:12; 22:9; 26:5; 15:13; 17:4; 19:3; 20:3; 26:5; 30:19; 31:21; 34:3, cf. E.L. Curtis/A.A. Madsen, The Book of Chronicles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910), 29. 62 Cf. 2 Chron 13:22 and 24:27 where the term midras is used in the meaning of an exposition of the written text. 63 Knoppers, Chronicles, 929. 64 Cf. Hurowitz, Exalted, 330-1.

94

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

As with the term TDD, ΠΊ3 in relation to the Ark marks the presence of the Ρ theology in the Chronicler's ark narrative. This would be a valid assumption since, apart from the Ps 132, ΠΊ3 is only found in relation to the Ark in the priestly text of Num 10:33-36. It could be argued that the term in 1 Chron 28:2 simply refers to its presence in the quotation of the Ps 132 in 2 Chron 6:41, in order to link the rules and missions of David and Solomon. Taking into account the scribal authorship of Chronicles, it should not be ruled out that, at the same time, ΠΊ3 is a deliberate allusion to the critical text of Isa 66:1, which is itself most probably an echo of the question in 2 Sam 7:5, as its wording suggests.65 Thus says the LORD: Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool (Din); what is the house that you would build for me, and what is my resting place (ΤΙΠΙϋΏ т р й ) ? (Isa 66:1).

However, as an important theological concept in the book, the term ΠΊ3 demands further explanation. The term is also applied to render Solomon's personal and ruler identity as that of a royal Temple Builder. he shall be a man of peace. I will give him peace (iV ТППЗГЛ ПГПЗЙ tt^X ПТР Х1П) from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon (1ΏΪ£>' ПТР Ό), and I will give peace and quiet DlV®') to Israel in his days (1 Chron 22:9).

With its semantic cognates (D*?^, VpW), ΠΊ3 is programmatic for Solomon's reign, but its range extends far beyond, expressing a positive evaluation of the reign of the faithful rulers after the division of the monarchy, in accordance with the principle of retribution. It is significant that it appears in the places which have no parallel in the Dtr Vorlage: Asa (2 Chron 14:4-7; 15:15), Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 20:30) and Hezekiah (2 Chron 32:22). This unique feature of Chronicles is undeniably linked to the prophetic messianic expectations, which construct their vision on the pattern of Solomon's reign. The interrelations between these messianic expectations and Chronicles will be examined in the next paragraph.

3.4 The golden age in Chronicles The Chronicler's belief that the history of the nation is directed, from its very beginning, towards the establishment of the Davidic monarchy, and that this monarchy is promised as everlasting, naturally affects his hope for the future restoration of Israel. Needless to say, this hope could not be divorced from the preceding prophetic tradition with its expectations of the

Sclmiedewind, Society, 116-17.

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

95

coming age of salvation under the rule of the messiah as YHWH's chosen ruler. The model on which the prophetic expectations are built is provided by the reminiscence of the times of the united monarchy under David and Solomon. Historically, the foundations of the royal Palace in the time of David and the construction of the Temple during the reign of Solomon linked Israel to the adjacent monarchies. The reign of David, as portrayed by 2 Sam, is characterized by victory in warfare from its beginning, since "YHWH gave victory to David wherever he went" Г^Л ПУХ Т1ТПХ ΠΙΠ* W V I ) (2 Sam 8:14). He subdues the Philistines (2 Sam 5:17-25; 8:1), the Moabites (2 Sam 8:2), the Arameans (2 Sam 8:5-6) the Edomites (2 Sam 8:14), and the Ammonites (2 Sam 12:29-31). However, as with the other ANE realms, David's expansion requires theological legitimacy. Roberts believes that an example for this can be found in Ps 82, in which YHWH blames the pagan gods for their bad rule. As a consequence of that incompetence He Himself takes over and other gods pay tribute to him.66 David, as YHWH's regent, is therefore authorized to rule over nations represented by their deities, which is the actual meaning of Ps 2, which addresses the issue of a rebellion of vassal kings against YHWH's chosen ruler. Vassals are called to kiss the feet of their suzerain (v. 12), which constitutes a recurrent motif in ANE royal inscriptions and iconography.67 The same principle of political legitimacy is also found in Mesopotamia.68 The age of Solomon, unlike the reign of David, is marked by peace and prosperity: For he had dominion over all the region west of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the Euphrates; and he had peace on all sides (THavVSü 1*7 ITH DlV^'l).69 During Solomon's lifetime Judah and Israel lived in safety, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, all of them under their vines and fig trees (1 Kings 5:4-5; ET 4:24-25).

It is the territorial expansion of David, however, which bequeaths his successor's kingdom with this privileged and universal character. The latter is Roberts, Bible, 325-6. This example is valid under the condition that Ps 82 comes from the reign of David. 67 M. Weinfeld, "Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia", in R.E. Friedman (ed.), The Poet and the Historian. Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (HSS 26; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 75-115, on pp. 96-7. 68 Roberts, Bible, 326. He adduces several examples while the Assyrian text from the time of Sennacherib published by W. von Soden, "Gibt es Zeugnis, das die Babylonier an Marduks Wiederauferstehung glaubten?", Z4 ns 16-17 (1952-55) 130-66, as the best parallel to Ps 82. Assur is therein the head of the divine court and condemns Marduk to prison for wrongdoing. It is comprehensible against the backdrop of the expansionist policy of Asyria, leading to conflict with Babylon, cf. Roberts, Bible, 326. 69 See a similar formulation: T W X < a > DlV®' ЛТ ΓΡΓΠ in Mic 5:4 (ET 5:5), see n. 71.

96

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

shown in the historical narrative of 1 Kings right at the beginning of Solomon's reign when Hiram, the king of Tyre and a good friend of David, sends his servants on the occasion of his coronation (1 Kings 5:15; ET 5:1), and is later also involved in building the Temple. The other occasion on which the international fame of Israel's kingdom is apparent is the queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon's Palace. The whole chapter in which the visit is depicted (1 Kings 10) can be read as a praise of Solomon's model kingdom. As suggested, prophetic literature draws on the preserved tradition of these historical events and to such an extent its approach is similar to that of Chronicles. The prophecy of Mic 4:1-5 is clearly linked to the already quoted text of 1 Kings 5:5 (ET 4:25) in which the peacefulness of Solomon's reign is presented. Micah, however, expands this image to all nations so that the boundaries of Pax Solomonica are shifted beyond the territory of the kingdom - from Dan to Beersheba - which is presented in the historical narrative: ... nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more; 4 but they shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees, and no one shall make them afraid; for the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken (Mic 3:3-4).

This text, which parallels Isa 2, omits the role of a human ruler, leaving all in the hands of YHWH. An emphasis is put on YHWH's ГГЛП, which will be accepted by other nations and bring about universal peace. Only later, in Mic 5:1-4 (ET 5:2-5), does the text include the prophecy of the rule of a future messiah. 2 But you, О Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. 3 Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has brought forth; then the rest of his kindred shall return to the people of Israel. 4 And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall live secure for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth; 5 and he shall be the one of peace (DlV®'

лт mm). In the given context, and perhaps intentionally, Mic 5:1-4 (ET 5:2-5) builds on the foregoing announcement of an absence of a king in Israel in Mic 4:9.70 The mission of the future messiah is designated in Mic 5:4 (ET 5:5) as "peace" (ΠΊ*?^ ЛТ ΓΡΠΊ)71 which binds the prophecy of Mic 5:1-4 (ET 5:2-5) to that of Isa 9:5-6 (ET 9:6-7): Μ.A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, volume two (2 vol.; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000), 387. 71 I agree with Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 387, that the best contextual reading of the phrase DlV® ΠΤ ΪΤΓΠ is to be taken as an introduction to the following text: "And this will be peace: when Assyrians come ..." (cf. Lev 7:1, 11; Deut 15:2; 19:4 for a similar introduction), or

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

97

For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor XVQ), Mighty God (ΎΠλ *7X), Everlasting Father (TVaX), Prince of Peace (Dl^'—

Isa 11:1-10 1 A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. 2 The spirit of the LORD shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD ... 5 Righteousness shall be the belt around his waist, and faithfulness the belt around his loins. 6 The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them ... for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. 10 On that day the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples; the nations shall inquire of him, and his dwelling shall be glorious.

or Ps

72:2-7

ascribed in its title to Solomon

(ilübuf?)

by the tradition:

2 May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. 3 May the mountains yield prosperity (DlV®' IXif') for the people, and the hills [DlV®' ΙΝΐε"]72 in righteousness (ПрНХЗ). 4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crash the oppressor. 5 May he live while the sun endu-

"This will be peace from Assyria: if he (Assur) comes ..." which is based on the reading • m ' x < a > mV®' ЛТ ПТЛ, taking Ü before ntC'X as a shared consonant intentionally omitted by scribes, cf. K.J. Cathcart, "Micah 5,4-5 and Semitic Incantations", Bib 59 (1978) 38-48, on p. 39. The phrase Ύ1Ϊ£>'Χ DlVtC' ΠΤ ΪΤΓΠ also provides a parallel for the reign of Solomon in 1 Kings 5:4 (ET 4:24) ν Ο ^ Γ ^ Ο Ώ iV ГГП Π Ί ^ ' Ί , the text linked to Mic 4:4, which quotes the following 1 Kings 5:5 (ET 4:25). Therefore, DlV®' is not to be taken as a direct reference to the messiah nor to the woman who gives birth to him (v. 2) as does LXX: ... έως καιροΰ τικτούσης τέξεται ... κ α ΐ έ σ τ α ι α ύ τ η ειρήνη (... until the time of she who will give birth ... she will be peace) ( w . 2-4). On the other hand, the possibility of reading DlVtC' ΠΤ as a divine name *dü Sälöm "the One of Peace" cannot be simply dismissed, since the use of du in divine epithets was frequent in Old Canaanite and is also encountered in the Old Testament, for example 'З'О ΠΤ (Judg 5:5), cf. F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 20 n. 44. This was also the former proposal of K.J. Cathcart, "Notes on Micah 5,4-5", Bib 49 (1968) 511-14. In his second article Cathcart introduces evidence for the ANE incantation texts, showing their relevance for the understanding of Mic 5:4-5, cf. Cathcart, "Incantations", 38-48. On the basis of this he takes the text of 5:4-5 as the language of false prophets who are supremely confident of their own ability to overcome the Assyrians. They rely on coalitions with other nations to ward off external dangers - an approach criticized by Isaiah. Cathcart thus also proposes to take Mic 5:4-5 in relation to 3:5-8, in which Micah condemns false prophets who rely on divination and magic. 72 Cf. S. Talmon, King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel: Collected Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 148. The phrase DlV®' I X i f ' is implied here; Talmon translates v. 3b as: "and [may] the hills [bring peace] through righteousness". Some manuscripts of the Lucianic recension of LXX, the Syriac version, and the Vulgata omit the preposition Э before at the end of the verse; in such a case, of course, the phrase DlVtC' I X i f ' would not be implied in the text of v. 3b. However, apart from the lateness of the tradition in the case of all three LXX l , Syriac version and Vulgata, the reading with the preposition Э is lectio dijjicilior, and its omission is almost certainly a secondary emendation of the text.

98

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

res, and as long as the moon, throughout all generations. 6 May he be like rain that falls on the mown grass, like showers that water the earth. 7 In his days may righteousness flourish and peace (DlVlC') abound, until the moon is no more.

The texts of Mic 5:1-5; Isa 8:23b-9:6 (ET 9:1-7) and Ps 72 serve to idealize Solomon's reign, and all of them naturally fit into the pre-exilic historical context.73 The ideal picture of a ruler reveals an important point, that in the pre-exilic Israel of the eighth century ВСЕ, prophets such as Isaiah and Micah do not challenge the legitimacy of the monarchy; on the contrary, they think of the king as the most natural bond between the nation and God. Thus, the monarchy was viewed as an institution immanent to Israel and one which is intended for its people from its inception. A curious discrepancy is encountered here between the approaches of Judg 8:22-23; 1 Sam 8:7; 12:12, 17-20 and the aforementioned prophetic texts. However, we encounter a correlation of this ideology with that of Chronicles which considers the dynastic promise made to David and its realization in the building of the Temple as the peak Israel's history. The contrasting perspectives on kingship within the Dtr corpus could be attributed to the incorporation of the northern Mosaic/Sinaitic traditions into its historical framework.74 Levenson suggested that, as with other texts, This is not to claim with certainty that they are pre-exilic, since the texts do not provide us with a clear evidence for any particular Sitz im Leben. However, if they can be explained against the background of the time of the author as well as the time of the later redactor, the former possibility should be given preference. In the case of Mic 5:1-5, moreover, it is reasonable to apply a diachronical approach to w . 4-5. We may follow Cathcart, "Incantations", 38-48, and take w . 4 - 5 as attached to the oracle of w . 1 - 3 , or alternatively assume with H.W. Wolff, Micah. A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1990), 147, that Mic 5:4b-5a is an insertion which takes 1st plur. of those under attack in 4:14 and 5:5b, using it as a new subject which will provide its own help against enemy. Wolff argues that Mic 5:4b-5a is more intelligible as a comment originally written on the margin of the manuscript and which later becomes a part of the text itself. Both proposals are plausible and show that either the whole part of w . 4 - 5 is later appended to the oracle of vv. 1 - 3 , or that the part 4b-5a is inserted into the text. In both cases the later addition is still concerned with the Assyrian occupation, and thus makes the exilic or post-exilic origin of the whole part unlikely, cf. also D.R. Hillers, Micah. A Commentary on the book of the Prophet Micah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 68-9. Concerning the text of Isa 8:23b-9:6 (ET 9:1-7), it may well be explained by "the hopes vested in the early Hezekiah or in the early Josiah" as Williamson puts it, cf. H.G.M. Williamson, "The Messianic Texts in Isaiah 1-39", in J. Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 239-270, on p. 257, and Isa 11:1-10 may have the part of vv. 6 - 9 as a secondary addition, Williamson, "Messianic", 264 n.52. Ps 72 is a pre-exilic coronation Psalm with close links to Ashurbanipal's coronation hymn; cf. F.L. Hossfeld/E. Zenger, Psalms 2. A commentary on Psalms 51-100 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 205. 74 Rofe, building on the older work of C.F. Burney, The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 2 1970), 41-50, accepts that the block of Josh 24-1 Sam 12 is in fact a collection of the northern traditions. He extracts the text of Judg 17-21 which is foreign to the main theme running through the narra-

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

99

Exod 19:3b—8 is modelled on the pattern of suzerainty treaty of the "priestly kingdom and a holy nation," here between YHWH as a suzerain and Israel as his alliance.75 5 Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, 6 but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation (Exod 19:5-6).

The stipulations of the Sinaitic covenant mentioned in v. 5, bind Israel to keep its commandments in order to preserve the status of YHWH's chosen nation. This old image of YHWH as a suzerain would have necessarily caused difficulties in its acceptance of the idea of an everlasting dynastic kingship in the south.76 YHWH's suzerainty precluded covenants with other suzerains, as Egypt and Assyria, in Israel's foreign politics (cf. Hos 7:10-13), as well as in setting up a king over the nation in its internal politics.77 The latter is precisely the reason why Gideon refuses to become a ruler over Israel (cf. Judg 8:22-23) or why YHWH states that Israel rejects him by choosing the institution of human kingship (1 Sam 8:7).78 According to this ideology, the institutions of divine and human kingships are mutually exclusive.79 Regarding the prophetic expectations of Isaiah and Micah, it has already been mentioned that they constitute an idealization of Solomon's kingship, ascribing to it characteristics of other ANE monarchies. The picture painted in these books and their general approach are drastically different from that of Deut 17:14-20, the Sitz im Leben of which remains uncertain.80 It could be of northern origin as well as a critique of the kingdom from the south,81 although a respect for the dynastic succession points rather to the second option. In any case, the text reflects a remarkable tendency to submit the

tive, as one which does not deal with judges at all, and also Judg 1:1-3:11, which on a textualcritical basis (comparison with the LXX) can be excluded from the original edition of Josh 24 + Judges. Without these texts we get the pure 'northern' edition which focuses on its own leaders as well as the places of worship, cf. A. Rofe, "Ephraimite versus Deuteronomistic History", in D. Garrone and F. Israel (ed.), Storia e tradizioni di Israele: Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin (Brescia: Paideia, 1991) 221-35, on pp. 223-4. 75 J.D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 23-32. 76 Levenson, Sinai, 72. 77 Levenson, Sinai, 72-3. 78 Levenson, Sinai, 73. 79 Levenson, Sinai, 73. 80 Nicholson argues that the 'foreigner' who, according to Deut 17:15, must not be established over Israel refers to the 'great king' (sarru rabü) in the Neo-Assyrian period; cf. E.W. Nicholson, '"Do not dare to set a foreigner over you": the king in Deuteronomy and "the great king'", ZAW118 (2006) 46-61. 81 Levenson, Sinai, 192-93.

100

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

king to the ordinances of the Law of Sinai, rather than present him as a messenger of justice to his people as is the case in Ps 72; Isa 11:1-5 or 32:1-5 for example. Nor is the king treated as the 'son of God' as is encountered in the Davidic tradition, since the theocratic ideal of Deuteronomy presents the nation of Israel in its entirety as 'son of God' (cf. Deut 14:1; 32:6, 18). It is thus interesting to examine how the Chronicler is able to use both traditions in his portrayal of an ideal picture of the united monarchy. One of the most cardinal passages for understanding the role of David in Chronicles is 1 Chron 28:1-21, in which David in his address to Israel, resuming his speech to Solomon in 1 Chron 22:6-16, elaborates on the dynastic promise. The statement of 1 Chron 17:7: 7 Now therefore thus you shall say to my servant David: Thus says the LORD of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people Israel (ViOÜ>·' 'öS? V» т а з ПГЛУ).

It is rendered by David as follows: 2 Hear me, my brothers and my people ('ЙЗЛ TIX) ... 4 the LORD God of Israel chose me (Ό VxiiP'' TlVx ПИТ ЧГП,-1) from all my ancestral house to be king over Israel forever (aVlV1? ^ H W ^ S "[VaV ГП'ЛУ); for he chose Judah as leader (ТазУ), and in the house of Judah my father's house, and among my father's sons he took delight in making me king ("['VanV) over all Israel (1 Chron 28:2, 4).

This is an apparent allusion to the Deuteronomic 'Law of the King': 14 ... and you say, "I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me," 15 you may indeed set over you a king ("|Vü "['Vv Π'ίΡΠ •!&>) whom the LORD your God will choose (13 "pH^X ΠΙΠ' ПИЗ' HP'X). One of your own community (Т>ПХ ЗЧрй) you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your own community (Х1П "pnX'XV IIC'X) (Deut 17:14-15).

The phrase T ^ N ГПГР T l T l in the speech of David (1 Chron 28:4) directly refers to 13 "pH^X ГПГР l i l T 1 Щ in the 'Law of the King' (Deut 17:15). It appears, moreover, that the 'Law of the King' is not the Chronicler's only reference. An examination of the wider context of the 'constitution of Israel', as presented in Deut 16:18-18:22, reveals that, apart from continuation of the monarchy (Deut 17:20), the above-mentioned phrase also affirms a continuation of Mosaic authority (Deut 18:15-19). 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people П'ПХЙ "plpa Х'ЗЗ) ... 17 Then the LORD replied to me ... 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people (ВТПХ 31j?Ü); I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command (Deut 18:15, 17-18).

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

101

As I already suggested, in the depiction of David who addresses the Israelites as his brothers CDJH TIN)82 (1 Chron 28:2) the Chronicler refers to the Deuteronomic 'Law of the King'. However, by letting him present the plan of the Temple ГРЗЗП, revealed by YHWH "to his mind" (1QV ГГЛЗ) (IChr 28:11-19), he also introduces David as a 'second Moses' (cf. Exod 25:1-35:11) and allows him to carry on the Mosaic succession. David's addressing the Israelites as TIN, does therefore not only position him as King of Israel, but also as a prophet in the line of Moses (cf. Deut 18:15, 18). As in the case of Moses, David is attributed in Chronicles the prophetic title of ЕГЛ^ХЛ 1У X "man of God."83 It is certainly interesting to observe, in this context, that approximately two centuries later the 1 lQPs a -Psalter provides us with an evidence of the belief in David as a prophet:84 2 And David, son of Jesse, was wise, and a light like the light of the sun, /and/ learned, 3 Blank and discerning, and perfect in all his paths before God and men. And 4 Blank YHWH gave him a discerning and enlightened spirit (ΠΎ1Ν1 ПЛЭЗ ΠΠ). And he wrote psalms: 5 three thousand six hundred; and songs to be sung before the altar over the perpetual 6 offering of every day, for all the days of the year: three hundred 7 and sixty-four; and for the Sabbath offerings: fifty-two songs; and for the offerings of the first days of 8 the months, and for all the days of the festivals, and for the [Day] of Atonement: thirty songs. 9 And all the songs which he spoke were four hundred and forty-six. And songs 10 to perform over the possessed: four. The total was four thousand and fifty. 11 All these he spoke through [the spirit of] prophecy (ΠΧΌ33) which had been given to him from before the Most High. (1 lQPsa xxvii, 2-11).

It is impossible, however, to trace this tradition back to the time of the composition of Chronicles. In the later period an explicit reference to the prophetic character of David is attested in the Acts of Apostles (2:30; 4:25) and Josephus (Ant 6:166; 8:109-10). The text concerned with David in Ecclesiasticus has been interpreted by Kugel as denying the tradition of David as a prophet by the beginning of the second century ВСЕ in which it

The phrase 'ÜV1 TIN is a hendiadys the meaning of which would have been an exact parallel to 'ЭЧрЙ TIN if we wanted to build a direct link to the phrases of Deut 17:15 ("[TIN ГПрЙ) or Deut 18:15, 18 ΠΤΙΝΏ "р-рЙ and ΠΠΤΙΝ ГПрЙ). The form ГПрЙ is never used as referring to the first person sing, or plur., however. 83 2 Chron 8:14, cf. 1 Chron 23:14 for Moses. David is also designated by this title in Neh 12:24, 36. As a prophetic title elsewhere cf. Deut 33:1; Josh 14:6; Judg 13:6, 8; 1 Sam 9:10; 1 Kings 12:22; 13:4-12, 14, 21, 26, 29, 31; 17:18; 20:28; 2 Kings 1:9, 11-14; 4:16, 21-2, 25, 27, 40; 5:8, 14-15, 20; 6:6, 9-10, 15; 7:2, 17-19; 8:2, 4, 7-8, 11; 13:19; 23:16-17; 1 Chron 23:14; 2 Chron 11:2; 25:9; 30:16; Ezra 3:2; Ps 90:1; Jer 35:4. In Neh 11:22-3 the expression "[^ЙЛ ГТОЙ which relates to the liturgical tasks of singers assigned to them by the king may have referred to the Persian king, cf. H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, (WBC 16; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), 352. 84 The following text is taken from the edition of F.G. Martinez/E.J.C. Tigchelaar (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vol.; Leiden/New York/Köln: Eerdmans, 1997-8), 1179.

102

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

was written.85 Kugel quotes Sir 47:8, observing that the Psalms are therein not associated with prophecy and that David is not yet recognized therein as the author of the Psalter. The whole section begins with the statement that after Samuel "Nathan rose up to prophecy in the time of David," stressing the succession of prophets for which purpose David could not serve.86 It is, nonetheless doubtful whether Ben Sira's aforementioned approach could testify to the non-existence of this tradition. All Ben Sira proves is that David is still not generally recognized as a prophet in second century ВСЕ Judaism. As Pomykala points out in this context, Ben Sira elsewhere clearly attests that he views prophecy as the teaching of sages, thus excluding David (cf. Sir 24:33).87 We therefore find evidence indicating that the given tradition is still only confined to specific circles in the beginning of the second century ВСЕ. On the other hand, it certainly existed before that time. 1 lQPs a in all probability predates the Qumran period88 and is affiliated with the stream of Judaism which uses the solar calendar (cf. 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Temple scroll).89 It is therefore undisputed that the idea of David as a prophet does not originate in the Qumran community, but necessarily precedes it. The milieu in which this notion stems from may indeed be connected to the circle of the Temple musicians designated as prophets (D'Wnin [ketiv]) (1 Chron 25:1), who trace their status in the Temple Cult to David as their founder:90 David and the officers of the army also set apart for the service the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy (ΙΤΝΌϋΠ [ketiv]) with lyres, harps, and cymbals (1 Chron 25:1).

We have already seen, in the reign of Hezekiah, that David's prominent position among the prophets suggests that he is considered by the Chronicler as a cultic prophet par excellence (cf. 2 Chron 29:25-30). The related issue, which cannot be omitted in this context, is the poem known as 'the last words of David' (2 Sam 23:1-7). This text fits into the pre-exilic context, which is also supported by archaic elements in its lan-

J.L. Kugel, "David the Prophet", in J.L. Kugel (ed.), Poetry and Prophecy. The Beginnings of a Literary Tradition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990) 45-55, on p. 53. 86 Kugel, "David the Prophet", 53. 87 K.E. Pomykala, "Images of David in Early Judaism", in C.A. Evans (ed.), Of Scribes and Sages. Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture vol. 1 (Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 9; London: T&T Clark, 2004) 33-46. 88 P.W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 198-201. 89 Flint, Psalms Scrolls, 199. 90 J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel: From the Settlement in the Land to the Hellenistic period (London: SPCK, 1984), 225.

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

103

guage.91 The majority of modern commentators therefore advocate an early date, although some of the older authors still argued for a later dating on the basis of a supposedly late vocabulary, wisdom motives, or the view of David as a songwriter.92 None of these points is convincing enough. McCarter observes that the only word which should be taken as late is 1ΓΙ*7Ώ in v. 2. 93 However, even in this case we can only say that the occurrence of the lexeme П*??р in the Hebrew Bible is exclusively linked with the wisdom tradition, which does not necessarily imply lateness. 94 This very point also disqualifies the other argument for a later date, deduced from the use of wisdom motives. As with the previous case, it again is implausible since such motives cannot with certainty be attributed to any specific period, and, consequently, cannot serve as indicators of a certain age.95 Finally, the word ГГЛЙТ 96 < "IQT of v.l probably reflects Ugaritic dmr and Amorite zmr "to safeguard, to protect"97, which would mean that the text does not designate David as 'the sweet psalmist of Israel' (KJV), but instead describes him as 'the favorite of the Strong One of Israel' (NRSV). McCarter argues that v. 2, in which David presents himself as a prophet is a later addition to the text of 2 Sam 23:l-7. 9 8 This conclusion is based on an observation concerning the poem's content as well as its form: (1) the presentation of David as a prophet is suspicious in the context of the older literature from which it seems to be absent;99 (2) by omitting v. 2 we receive a fluent and well built text, which enhances the possibility of understanding v. 2 as an additional gloss. If we, on the basis of these indicators, consider 91

Cf. Cross, Canaanite, 234-47. Cf. H.P. Smith, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899) 381-83; K. Budde, Die Bücher Samuel (Tübingen/Leibzig: J.C.B. Mohr, 1902) 315-17; W. Nowack, Richter, Ruth, and Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902), 251. 93 P.K. McCarter, 2 Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 485. 94 It can also be found more than 30 times in the Book of Job in Prov 23:9 and finally in Pss 19:5 (ET 19:4) and 139:4 which all incorporate wisdom elements. For Rendsburg, the employment of the lexeme ItVü in addition to other six "instances of non-formative Hebrew usage" points to the northern or north-eastern regions of Israel as the area of provenance of 2 Sam 23:1-7, cf. Rendsburg "Northern", 113-21; A.G. Rendsburg, "The Northern Origin of 'The Last Words of David' (2 Sam 23,1-7)", Bib 69 (1988) 113-21; idem "Additional Notes on 'the Last Word of David' (2 Samuel 23:1-7)", Bib 70 (1989) 403-8. 95 McCarter, 2 Samuel, 485. 96 Cf. H.N. Richardson, "Last Words of David: some notes on 2 Samuel 23:1-7", JBL 90 (1971) 257-266, on p. 261, argues that the plural form of the verb should be retained and viewed as an 'intensive plural', not an uncommon form for divine epithets. In such a case Vx-lfr·' ПП!ЭТ would go well with the parallel in the first part of the verse. Cross, Canaanite, 234, argues differently for the singular ГПЙТ as attested by GL. 97 Cf. Richardson, "Last Words", 261. 98 McCarter, 2 Samuel, 480. 99 McCarter, 2 Samuel, 480-81. 92

104

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

v. 2 as a later addition to the original text, it cannot be taken as a very late intrusion. As a part of the poem it is confirmed in the LXX, 4QSam a and, indeed, we have no textual evidence for its omission in the whole manuscript tradition. 2 Sam 23:2 has been therefore, well settled in the manuscript tradition by the second century ВСЕ. This moves the addition of v. 2 to well before this time, although, again, it is difficult to position it precisely. In any case, it may suggest a link with the circle of the Temple personnel attested in Chronicles. The circle under discussion is presumably also involved in the editing of the Psalter as it appears to be witnessed by the Davidic superscriptions to the psalms which contain divine oracles (Pss 12:6; 32:8-9; 35:3; 60:8-10; 68:23-24; 110) and theophany (Ps 18:8-16).100 We here find a well-defined group of Temple personnel, who come from the Levitical circles, consider themselves prophets, and recognize David as their spiritual ancestor. The emphasis on the role of David as a model repentant sinner in the census pericope and later as a prophet, would support this option. As the result of the prophetic gift, David functions in Chronicles as a mediator between YHWH and Israel, as did Moses in ancient times. However, David is at the same time a king who sits on the throne of YHWH.101 The two functions have merged together and the old controversy about kingship present in Dtr is thus no longer applicable. While in the old Sinaitic tradition which accepted YHWH as a suzerain of Israel, Moses is a legitimate mediator of the Law, in Chronicles the monarchy is presented as a continuation of this role.102 The Laws of Sinai thus find their completion in the placement of the Ark in the most sacred location in the Temple. More precisely, the Sinaitic tradition is only fulfilled in connection with the cult of the Temple of Jerusalem, in which a king of the united Israel stands as

Cf. R.J. Tournay, Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (JSOTSup 118; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 44. 101 In the text of the 'Constitution' (Deut 16:18-18:22) the commission to serve as a mediator between God and the people is taken away from the priests and assigned only to the prophets presented as successors of Moses, cf. Lohfink, "Distribution", 349. As with the attribution of the prophetic role to King David, there is also a tendency to view the prophet Moses as king in the period of the later intertestamental Judaism, namely in the works of Ezekiel the Tragedian, Philo {De Vita Mosis 1.148-9, 158) and in the rabbinic tradition, cf. W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM Press, 1998), 31, and as a guardian of monarchia in Artapanus (in Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica 9:27, 432b-c), cf. Horbury, "Monarchy", 84. 102 From the later period of Hellenistic Judaism we have a fragment of the work of Eupolemus, preserved in Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica 9.30, 447a-b, which attests that royal succession from Saul to Solomon has been viewed by Eupolemus as a continuation of the prophetic succession from Moses to Samuel. It has been considered as the fulfilment of Deut 18:15-22 (the prophet like Moses) and 17:14-20 (the Law of the King) in the form of a historical sequence, Horbury, Monarchy, 83-4.

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

105

the highest representative.103 The appointment of Temple personnel by David is therefore a necessary addition to the mediation of the Sinaitic stipulations by Moses; this is plainly expressed at the cultic occasions in which we are told that everything is prepared in accordance with the commandments of Moses and David: 2 Chron 8:12-16 - in which the Chronicler expands on the source of 1 Kings 9:25, and 2 Chron 35:4-6, 12-15 - in the text of Josiah's Passover, which is unique to Chronicles. Another important consequence of this approach is that the Law of Moses, embodied in the Ark, is presupposed, and does not compete with the everlasting Davidic covenant. In contrast to Jeremiah, Chronicles does not present the 'old covenant' as losing its validity in the new age, which is portrayed in the exemplary reign of David-Solomon. YHWH will not directly and unconditionally enter human hearts.104 He resides in the Temple and in order to maintain contact with Him man must recognize the legitimacy of the Jerusalem Temple, repent, and keep the commandments of the Torah as represented by the Ark of the Covenant. It is the Ark and therefore also the Torah, which reveal the presence of YHWH in the Temple.

3.5 Summary A closer examination of the laws that form the context to the 'Law of the King' in Deuteronomy (Deut 16:18-20; 17:8-13) and their comparison with an administration of the monarchic institutions in Chronicles before and after the division of the kingdom, confirms that the Palace-Temple relations seem incompatible in the two eras discussed. While both the secuThus Chronicles stays in line with the older texts which transfer the tradition of Sinai to Zion (Ps 68:16-18; Isa 2:1-4; 4:5), cf. M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 371. 104 First of all, Jer 3:16-17 proclaims that the Ark is redundant in the age of redemption. In the text of v. 17 he makes clear that the role of the 'throne of YHWH' is to be transferred from the Ark to Jerusalem in which all nations will gather because of YHWH's presence. This idea of the nations gathering in Zion is also known from 16:19, as well as from the prophecies of Isaiah (2:2-4; 18:7; 25:6) and Micah (4:1-4), cf. M. Weinfeld, "Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel", ZAW 88 (1976) 17-56, on p. 21. In Jeremiah it "describes the period following the redemption as one in which a spiritual change would occur and in stead of the tangible object which symbolizes the throne of God, all of Jerusalem would become, as it were, the throne of God", cf. Weinfeld, "Metamorphosis", 24. This attitude is naturaly connected with the approach to the covenant tablets in Jer 31:31-34. The law will be spiritually engraved into the hearts of the Israelites and the covenant tablets will therefore become redundant. In both cases Jeremiah implicitly refers to the fact that the Ark is not present in the Temple any more, and, that the Old Covenant has therefore become obsolete. God's intervention in the age of redemption will be unconditional and direct, without any further mediation.

106

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

lar and the sacral spheres are administered from one centre during the reign of David, they are strictly divided in the administrative system of Jehoshaphat which follows the division. The 'Law of the King' in Deut 17:14-20 is inconsistent with the view on kingship in Dtr, which becomes most evident if the former is compared with the reign of Solomon. On the other hand, both Deut 17:14-20 and Dtr share a common view that the institution of monarchy is allowed only from a certain point of history onwards in contrast to Chronicles in which it constitutes a focal point for the whole history of the nation. This approach of Chronicles is in agreement with the royal ideology of the great empires of the Ancient Near East, and is achieved by the introduction of the Ρ theology to its account together with an emphasis on the features that are common to the ANE ideology of kingship. It is the idea of universalism, so characteristic to Second Temple Judaism, which is behind this portrayal of the Chronicler. We may again point to his adaptation of the approach of Second-Isaiah in the last chapter.105 The reign of Solomon, which constitutes the climax of the whole of Chronicles, is marked by peace and prosperity, and also serves as an ideal for the prophets who portray a future age of salvation. The messianic prophecies of Isa 2; 8:23b-9:6 (ET 9:1-7); 11:1-10; Mic 5:1-5 depict the new age as an idealized vision of Solomon's kingship. This provides a link, with the exactly same approach, between these prophecies and Chronicles. Both Chronicles and the aforementioned prophets view the king as the most natural representative of Israel before YHWH. All this suggests that the Chronicler draws in his portrayal of Solomon on the earlier messianic tradition. It is, of course, incorporated into the Chronicler's concept of Solomon as a Temple Builder, but this does not mean that his role as a king is entirely subordinate to the cult.106 Although the approach is rather different from the one we find in the 'Law of the King', the Chronicler makes an apparent allusion to it. At the same time, however, he alludes to the Deuteronomic text which foretells the arrival of a prophet like Moses, and lets David receive the plan for the Temple through direct mediation from YHWH. Moses - David therefore represent a succession of the most important cultic institutions in Israel: the tabernacle and the Temple i.e. as the Law comes through Moses, the personal organization of the Temple is established by David. The two are complementary since David's mission completes that of Moses. Mosaic Law is presupposed and does not compete with the Davidic Covenant as it is found

One of the best examples of universalism in the Second Temple Period is of course the Book of Job, in which the righteous hero, who is set as an example, is not presented as an Israelite. 106 Pace Riley, King and Cultus, 96.

The Law of the King in Deuteronomy and Chronicles

107

in Dtr. The definition of David as a second Moses further allows the Chronicler to present him as a mediator and, therefore, as a king whose priestly function follows naturally from that given status. This too reflects a staunch connection to the Mesopotamian ideology of kingship suppressed in Dtr. For the Chronicler, however, the status of king-mediator only applies to a Davidic king of 'all Israel,' since this is prophesied in the dynastic promise. This very fact also explains why the kings following the division of the monarchy have a different status from that of David and Solomon. It is plausible that we should search for the author of Chronicles among the circle of the Temple musicians, selected as prophets (D'Wnin [ketiv]) at 1 Chron 25:1. These musicians trace their position in the temple cult back to David whom they view as their ancestor, and are most likely also involved in the final editing of the Psalter. This naturally opens the question of the relations between the final editorial activity of the Psalter and the composition of Chronicles. This issue will be addressed in further detail in the following chapter.

4. The book of Chronicles' King-Temple relations in the context of the shaping of the Psalter

In the study of the deployment of Biblical Psalms in the book of Chronicles two issues of importance are apparent: (1) direct quotations of Psalms are only found in the places in which David and Solomon are personally involved in the cult: 1 Chron 16 and 2 Chron 6. They are not found after the division of the monarchy; (2) in both texts the author intentionally departs from his Vorlage in which these quotations are not registered. However, the strong presence of the Psalm tradition in Chronicles is also found in the wider context. Thus, David's hymn of praise and thanksgiving in 1 Chron 29:10-19 shares common themes with 1 Chron 16 - the Land in connection with the patriarchs and the kingship of YHWH - and both 1 Chr 16:8-36 and 29:10-19 are closed with petitions.1 The people's prayer in 29:20 is termed a 'blessing' and is set as a response to David's exhortation, which also reflects the Psalm tradition.2 Finally, the refrain, "Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever" is employed in several places throughout Chronicles during cultic occasions (1 Chron 16:41; 2 Chron 5:13; 7:3, 6; 20:21). Three biblical Psalms quoted in 1 Chron 16 (Pss 105; 96 and 106) at the occasion of the bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem form one long Psalm of praise. Butler argues that this Psalm anthology thematically matches Chronicles as a whole and points towards a theologically-motivated choice of the editor who put these Psalms together.3 Hill, however, points out that attention should also be paid to the internal poetic structure of the composite Psalm as well as to the manner in which the dominant theological theme of the Psalm is correlated with this structure within the context of the events described in 1 Chron 15-17. 4 Through such an analysis he shows how the anthology is arranged according to Hebrew poetic devices and concludes

Williamson, Chronicles, 185-86. Braun, 1 Chronicles, 289. 3 T.C. Butler, "A Forgotten Passage from a Forgotten Era (1 Chr. XVI 8-36)", VT 28 (1978) 142-50, on p. 149. 4 A.E. Hill, "Patchwork Poetry or Reasoned Verse? Connective Structure in 1 Chronicles XVI", VT 33 (1983) 97-101, on p. 98. 2

Chron's King-Temple relations and the shaping of the Psalter

109

that it is not "patchwork poetry," but rather deliberate and artistically skilful "reasoned verse".5 One important point concerning the re-elaboration is that the quotation of Ps 105 in 1 Chron 16 is cut off at the place in which Ps 105 starts with its historical account of the biblical events in Egypt, which in turn agrees with the omission of the exodus theme from the book in general. Instead of a narrative style of the story of Joseph we are confronted with an imperative mood of the introductory verses of Ps 96 which presents, unlike the rest of Ps 105, a universal viewpoint. A transition from the particular Israelite concern to the theme of the universal kingship of YHWH is thus intentional, and in the context of the following text of 1 Chron 17 the idea of the universal rule forms a background to the dynastic promise.6

Hill, "Patchwork Poetry", 100. The texts of the psalms in the Psalter and 1 Chron display some variants which cannot be attributed to the Chronicler's intent and at the same time can hardly be explained through textual criticism. Thus, for example, 1 Chron 16:16 gives the spelling of the name Isaac рП^', which is different from Ps 105:9 which gives ρΠί!7' - both readings are attested in the Hebrew Bible. It can be observed that the reading ρΠί!7' is connected with the poetic tradition: Jer 33:26; Amos 7:9,16; Ps 105:9 while pnS'' would be the normal reading in the Pentateuch, Dtr and Chron i.e. in prosaic texts. In 1 Chron 16 it could be secondarily changed in order to harmonize the reading with the other occurrences in the book (1 Chron 1:28, 34; 29:18 and 2 Chron 30:6). 1 Chron 16:21 employs in the phrase "he allowed no one to oppress them" the word tt^X while Ps 105:14 uses ЭТХ. 1 Chron 16:22 uses the word 'Х'ЗЗ with the preposition 3 instead of the Ь found in Ps 105:15. As for Ps 96 in the text of 1 Chron 16:32b-33 five forms different from Ps 96:12-13 are encountered in two verses: р Х П X3 Ό Χ3 Ό ΠΙΠ' ' » V ПУ" 'XirVS ЮТ TX 13—W'X-VDI И®' TVV (Ps 96:12-13) in contrast to рХГГПХ DQW'V (the second X3 Ό is missing) Х З ^ Э ΠΙΠ' ' » V ö ПУЛ 'SV ЮТ' TX 13—ΚΡ'χ-^Ι ΓΠίΡΠ γ ^ Τ (1 Chron 16:32b-33). Ps 96 moreover adds at the end: ЧППЙХЗ П'ЙЭТ рНХЗ V3n_DQ®'. Such a frequency of different readings in a short text does not allow us to explain them as a mere misreading or mishearing of a copyist. We might see behind this a different textual tradition which has not been preserved, or a quoting of the given psalms by heart with a creative approach to the text. Japhet observes that the introduced changes are fully consistent with the creative method of the reworking of the source-text elsewhere in the book, which points to the latter alternative as the more likely one, cf. Japhet, Chronicles, 313. Consequently, with a certain degree of probability, we can assign to the Chronicler interpretative tendencies through the introduced changes in some places which eventually could be understood in such a way: the reading of VXlif' in 1 Chron 16:13 instead of ЗГПЗХ in Ps 105:6; reading of forms that would suggest the direct address of a present assembly in 1 Chron 16:15, 19 (1ЧЭТ instead of IDT and ПЭГЛТП instead of 1ЙрЙЗ) or reading ЧЙрЙЗ (1 Chron 16:27) instead of ^ ' Т р Й З of Ps 96:6. 6 Its final statement in 17:14: ПУ]5?ГП57 ТПЭ^ЙЗ ТРЗЗ 1ГГГП!Э5?т against 2 Sam 7:16: ПУ15П5? -[ПЭ^ЙЙТ "[ГРЗ pXÜI could be seen in this perspective as referring primarily to the kingship of YHWH, and not to that of an earthly king. However, this should not necessarily be attributed to the Chronicler's interpretative tendency. In light of the fact that the Chronicler's Vorlage is not of the proto-Masoretic type, but is of the different text type from which the Greek translation of Samuel stems, we must concede that an interpretative tendency is not necessarily the case here; cf. W.E. Lemke, "The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler's History", HTR 58 (1965) 349-63, on p. 362. The Greek text of 2 Sam 7:16 reads: καΐ πιστωθήσεται ö οίκος αύτοΰ (1ΓΡ3) κοΛ ή βασιλεία αύτοΰ ОПЭ^ЙЙ!) έως αιώνος ... which differs from the MT 2 Sam 7:16 in reading suffixes 3. sing. 1 instead of 2. sing. ^ to the words: ΓΡ3 and ИЗ^ЙЙ/ШЭ^Й. A

110

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

A cultic occasion at which the psalmody in 1 Chron 16 is presented is later repeated in 1 Chron 29 in which David, after the freewill offerings, praises YHWH before ЬпрЬ'Ь'Э (v. 20). It is worth noting that in both texts the focal point is the kingship of YHWH. In the Psalm of 1 Chron 16 it forms the climax with the exclamation, I^Q ΠΙΠ* (v. 31). The text preceding the exclamation carries its own ideas towards this statement and the text which follows it develops the idea of kingship further in the concluding verses of praise (vv. 32-36). Thus Ps 105 stands in the context of 1 Chron 16 as an introduction to the "J^Q ΠΊΓΡ statement. The kingship of YHWH is through this connection inextricably linked to the covenant with Abraham and the promise of the Land. Differently from 1 Chron 16, the text of 1 Chron 29 places the statement about YHWH's kingship at the head of the prayer (v. 11) as an introductory statement which is then carried forward, developed through related themes, and finally concluded by the petition on behalf of Solomon - the temple builder. The theme of the Land in 1 Chron 29:15 is, unlike in 1 Chron 16, only mentioned as a humble declaration of Israel's unworthiness vis-a-vis YHWH the King, using the language built upon the individual lament of Ps 39:13 and the text of Job 8:9. Yet, the hymnic character of both prayers, their themes which are focused on YHWH's kingship along with their strategic position at the pivotal cultic events, all provide a strong link between these texts. It could further be observed that at both occasions it is King David who is fully responsible for the worship and acts as a priest. Another cultic occasion in which the king performs a priestly duty is connected with Solomon after the transferring of the Ark to the Temple. Unlike the source text of 1 Kings 8, the Chronicler introduces in his version of Solomon's prayer (2 Chron 6:12-42) the text derived from Ps 132:8-10. Although we should speak rather of a paraphrase than of an exact rendering of Ps 132 in Chronicles, it is still appropriate to term it "quotation". The sequence of ideas follows the order of Ps 132, with the exception of the concluding v. 42 which intentionally reverses the order to emphasize the last statement referred to in Isa 55:3b: "Remember your steadfast love for your servant David".7 As is the case in the transition from Ps 105 to Ps 96 in

further change of the Hebrew consonant 1 to ' in 1 Chron 17:14 cannot be guaranteed as an interpretative strategy since the two could easily be mistakenly interchanged. In this particular case, it is also supported by the reading of Par 17:14: καΐ πιστώσω αύτόυ έυ οικω μου (ТРЭД) καΐ έυ βασίλεια αίποΰ ОПЭ^ЙЙ!) έως αιώνος, where its Hebrew Vorlage seems to misread the suffix 1 in the word ГРЭ for cf. McKenzie, Chronicler's Use, 64. On the other hand, the texts unique to Chronicles clearly refer to David and Solomon as sitting on the throne of YHWH (cf. 1 Chron 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron 9:8), which could not be a mere coincidence. We have already seen that it is an important part of the Chronicler's presentation of the united monarchy as a programmatic one. 7 Williamson, Chronicles, 220.

Chron's King-Temple relations and the shaping of the Psalter

111

1 Chron 16, here too the theme of exodus would naturally be introduced if the author would follow his Vorlage, in this case 1 Kings 8:51-3. The exodus theme is, however, cut off and Ps 132:8-10 is introduced as its surrogate. The theme is only present in the Ark of Covenant, which is here connected with the promise to David. This connection is significant to Chronicles and appears thrice in its text: (1) In the special arrangement of 1 Chron 16-17 in which the celebration of the bringing of the Ark to Zion is attached to the pronouncement of the dynastic promise; (2) In 2 Chron 6:1-11, in which Solomon interprets Nathan's prophecy and concludes with the statement: I have succeeded my father David, and sit on the throne of Israel, as the LORD promised, and have built the house for the name of the LORD, the God of Israel and have built the house for the name of the YHWH, the God of Israel. There I have set the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD (ГПГГ ΓΡΌ £№'—HP'X |Т1ХГГПХ £№' Π'ίΡΧΙ) that he made with the people of Israel (2 Chron 6:10-11).

(3) Finally, by the rendering of Ps 132:8-10 in 2 Chron 6:41-2 in which reminding YHWH of TVT '"ΤΟΠ is conditioned by the presence of the Ark in the Temple. Psalms 96, 105, 106 and 132, which are quoted in Chronicles in the context of YHWH's kingship combined with the sacral kingship of DavidSolomon, are placed in the MT Psalter in books IV and V. These two books have a special position within the Psalter as shown by the study of Wilson and Flint.8 Both show, through a thorough examination, how the Qumran Psalm Scrolls are related to the MT Psalter. Flint, refining Wilson's methodology, studies the arrangement of the adjoining Qumran Psalms in relation to the MT, as well as their content in terms of containment or noncontainment of compositions which are not found in the MT Psalter. Both have provided evidence for a close similarity in the case of Psalms 1-89 (Books I—III) on the one hand, and abundant and major divergences for Psalms 90 onwards (Books IV-V), on the other hand. Further study of the age of the Qumran manuscripts in relation to the MT Psalter has disproved the theory of "gradual stabilization" of the Psalter and has suggested a finalization of the Book of Psalms in two stages: Psalms 1-89 are stabilized before the beginning of the Qumran period cca 150 ВСЕ, while the part of Psalms 90 onwards remains fluid into the first century CE.9 In the late Second Temple period three different editions of the Psalter are probably at work:

8

Flint, Psalms Scrolls, 141-43; G.H. Wilson, Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, (SBLDS 76; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 116-21. 9 Flint, Psalms Scrolls, 142-46.

112 • • •

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

The early edition (Psalms 1 or 2 to 89) The 1 lQPs a -Psalter 10 - compiled among circles that embraced the 364-day solar calendar as found in 1 Enoch and Jubilees11 The MT Psalter

The last two editions differ considerably in the part of Ps 90 onwards which represents Books IV-V of the Psalter. Wilson considers Book IV (90-106), in which the high proportion of 'untitled' Psalms is found when compared to the rest of the Psalter, as the special product of an intentional editorial arrangement.12 He calls it the 'editorial centre' of the final form of the Hebrew Psalter, standing as the 'answer' to the problem of the failure of the Davidic covenant in light of exile. The problem has been posed by the text of Ps 89 and the answer given in Book IV is summarized by Wilson in these four points:13 (1) YHWH is king, (2) YHWH had been Israel's refuge long before the monarchy existed (Mosaic period), (3) YHWH will continue to be their refuge after the monarchy is gone, (4) blessed are they that trust in him. Book V continues to address the message set forth by Book IV in its focus on YHWH's trustworthiness and the necessity of relying on Him. At the centre of the book stands Psalm 119, emphasising the primacy of the Law in the relations between YHWH and man.14 Psalms 145-146, returning to the theme of YHWH's kingship, state that YHWH is the only king who is ultimately worthy of trust.15 Even if one is sceptical about Wilson's claim that royal Psalms have been consciously placed at the seams of Book I—III of the Psalter,16 the break of a royal ideology represented by Ps 89:39-52 and the already mentioned character of the subsequent Books IV-V, markedly different from I—III, is meaningful. The theory is supported by Wilson's observation that the organizing principles behind some grouping of the Psalms in the 1 lQPs a are similar to those in Book IV-V in the MT Psalter.17

10 The l l Q P s a scroll does not in itself preserve the material of Psalms 1-89, but its existence together with the latter part (Ps 90 and beyond) is attested in the single scrolls of 4QPs e and 1 lQPs b respectively, cf. Flint, Psalms Scrolls, 169. 11 Flint, Psalms Scrolls, 168-70, 192-93, 226-27, 239-40. The evidence of the 'Solar Calendar' behind the structure of the collection of l l Q P s a is according to Flint based on the number 52 of the Psalms which were used for worship and teaching, thus corresponding to the 52 weeks of the solar year. The function of the remaining four Psalms in the scroll is only to assert the Davidic authorship of the document; see pp. 192-93. 12 Wilson, Editing, 215. 13 Wilson, Editing, 215. 14 Wilson, Editing, 223-24. 15 Wilson, Editing, 227-8. 16 Cf. Day, Psalms, 110-11. 17 Wilson, Editing, 126-7.

Chron's King-Temple relations and the shaping of the Psalter

113

In addition to W i l s o n ' s observations regarding the purpose of Books I V - V , 1 8 one should note an important point. Gosse notes that the editorial activity concerning B o o k IV is related to the theology and phrasing of Trito-Isaiah, and that the phrases given to David as king in Ps 89 have been transferred, mainly in Psalms 1 0 5 - 1 0 6 , to the patriarchs and to the nation: 19 I have made a covenant with my chosen one ('ТГПУ), I have sworn to my servant David (HSV ТЛУ): I will establish your descendants forever, and build your throne for all generations (Ps 89:4). О offspring of his servant Abraham (ПЭ2? ПГПЭХ 2ЛТ), children of Jacob, his chosen ones (ТТПЗ ЗрУ ' И ) (Ps 105:6). For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham, his servant (ИЭ2? ПГПЭХ). So he brought his people out with joy, his chosen ones ("РТГП) with singing (Ps 105:42-3). ... that I may see the prosperity of your chosen ones ("рТГП), that I may rejoice in the gladness of your nation, that I may glory in your heritage (Ps 106:5). Therefore he said he would destroy them - had not Moses, his chosen one (ΙΤΓΠ ntCb), stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath from destroying them (Ps 106:23). It is worth noting that the title Τ Γ Ώ is not found anywhere else in the Psalter. The extension of the Davidic titles to the patriarchs as representatives of a primordial community, including Moses, shows that the community of the postexilic Israel attempts b y such means to identify itself with its own roots. 20 Another example which could be raised in this context is related to the term IT ΦΏ: But now you have spurned and rejected him; you are full of wrath against your anointed ("|ITtt>b) ... Remember, О Lord, how your servant is taunted (7Ή327 ПЭЧП); how I bear in my bosom the insults of the peoples, with which your enemies taunt, О LORD, with which they taunted the footsteps of your anointed ("|ITtt>b maj?V 1ЭЧП) (Ps 89:39,51-2). Do not touch my anointed ones (TPtiba "ШГГ^Х); do my prophets no harm (Ps 105:15). Again, the royal title belonging to David as king in Ps 89 is transferred to the nation. 21

18

Wilson, Editing, 214-28. B. Gosse, "Les mentions de Mo'ise en Isa'ie 63,7-64,11 et Psaumes 90-106, et relations entre le livre d'Isa'ie, le Psautier et les Cantiques", Trans 24 (2002) 23-39; idem B. Gosse, "Le quatrieme livre du Psautier, Psaumes 90-106 comme reponse a l'echec de la royaute davidique", BZNF 46 (2002) 239-52. 20 Gosse, "Les mentions", 26. 21 Gosse, "Les mentions", 26. 19

114

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

It is certainly not coincidental in this context that Book IV bears the special characteristic of the Mosaic imprint, which, as Zenger observes, sets it apart from the rest of the Psalter collections.22 The first Psalm of the composition, which is traditionally ascribed to Moses and is seen as his prayer (Ps 90), begins with a reference to the creation, while the collection is closed with Ps 106, with its recapitulation of the exodus, the conquest and life on the Land as evaluated through the perspective of Deut 7:1-5, 16; 29:26; 31:17; 32:17.23 A 'pentateuchal', Mosaic orientation of Book IV, is further asserted by the repeated reference to Moses (Ps 90 [title]; 99:6; 103:7; 105:26; 106:16, 23, 32), who is mentioned only once in the other Psalter collections (Ps 77:21 [ET 77:20]). The superscription of Ps 90 ЛЮТЛ П*?2П "A Prayer of Moses, the man of God" - and its text make perfect sense against the final lament of Ps 89. In order to mitigate God's anger a prophetic supplication, appealing to the very beginning of Israel's election, is needed in order to ensure the continuity of the nation.24 It is, therefore, important to note that Ps 90:13 alludes to Moses' prayer in Exod 32:12-13 and Deut 32:13:25 Ps 90:13

Exod 32:12-13; Deut 32:36

Turn, О LORD! How long? Have compassion on your servants!

12

Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants ... 14 And the LORD changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people (Exod 32:12-13). 36

Indeed the LORD will vindicate his people, have compassion on his servants, when he sees that their power is gone, neither bond nor free remaining (Deut 32:36).

'Mose-Dimension', cf. N. Lohfink/E. Zenger, Der Gott Israels und die Völker: Untersuchungen zum Jesajabuch und zu den Psalmen (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 154; Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994), 154-5. 23 Lohfink/Zenger, Der Gott Israels, 154. 24 Lohfink/Zenger, Der Gott Israels, 155. 25 Lohfink/Zenger, Der Gott Israels, 155.

Chron's King-Temple relations and the shaping of the Psalter

115

The 'Mosaic character' of Book IV shifts the focus from David's kingship back to Israel under the leadership of Moses and the suzerainty of YHWH. Indeed, Moses is portrayed here as the leader of the nation and as a priest alongside Aaron, rather than as a prophet and a 'lawgiver' (cf. Pss 99:6; 103:7; 105:26; 106:16, 23, 32). In Book IV there is an apparent shift of interest towards priestly characters and their functions.26 The importance of the abovementioned examples is all the more highlighted if we realize that Psalms 96, 105 and 106 present in Book IV are quoted in 1 Chron 16. As noted by Wilson, Ps 89 forms the core of the final edition of the Psalter, in a manner similar to that of the dynastic promise in 1 Chron 17 constituting the core of Chronicles. In Chronicles, the continuity of the Ark's arrival in Jerusalem (1 Chron 16) in addition to the dynastic promise (1 Chron 17) could mean that the promise to the patriarchs and "J^Q ГПГР statement in Ps 96 (1 Chron 16:31) is not fully accomplished before the reign of David-Solomon. This further underscores the universal character of the Davidic kingdom and makes it explicit. In the Psalter, on the other hand, we encounter the opposite direction. The ΠΊΓΡ Psalms with Pss 105 and 106 are subsequent to the dynastic promise of Ps 89, which at the same time refers to the failure of the Davidic dynasty. Thus, the mentioned Psalms serve as an answer to this problem as is suggested above. The result of this observation is obvious: while there is no conflict at all between the kingships of YHWH and David in Chronicles, a certain discord is certainly alluded to by the final editors of the Psalter. For these redactors the old covenant with David is transferred to the nation as a whole, and is represented above all by priestly figures from the past. A careful study of the approach to kingship in Deutero-Isaiah does not only lead to the same ideology described in the case of the final editing of the Psalter, but also to the same method of presentation. Otto Eissfeldt traces a considerable amount of evidence for the common language of Ps 89 and Deutero-Isaiah, thereby suggesting that Deutero-Isaiah knows the Psalm and makes use of it.27 It is, therefore, interesting to note that the royal K. Koch, "Der Psalter und Seine Redaktionsgeschichte", in K. Seybold/E. Zenger (ed.), Neue Wege der Psalmen Forschung: für Walter Beyerlin (Herders Biblische Studien 1; Freiburg: Herder, 1994) 243-77, on pp. 267-8. 27 ' Τ Γ Ο "my chosen one" (Ps 89:4 [ET 3] cf. Isa 42:1; 43:20; 45:4); ΠΙΠ'^ ТОТ ΠΙΠ'^ - р У 'Ö "who can be compared to YHWH? Who is like YHWH?" (Ps 89:7 [ET 6]) cf. iV 1ЭЧ27П m a v T O i Vx f v a - m ' » " V x ' 'To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?" (Isa 40:18); Т Ю З - ' » (ГПГГ) "(YHWH) who is like you?" (Ps 89:9 [ET 8]) cf. ' П Й Э Ό "who is like me?" (Isa 44:7); DTI ГТШЗ VttTO ППХ "You rule the raging of the sea" (Ps 89:10 [ET 9]) cf. П' ГППХ Т Г т З |П "By my rebuke I dry up the sea" (Isa 50:2) as well as П' ПЗППЙЛ ХТГПХ XlVn "Was it not you who dried up the sea?" (Isa 51:10); ЗГП У Т О ПХГЛ ЛПХ "You crushed Rahab like a carcass" (Ps 89:11 [ET 10]) cf. ЗГП ГП2ТОП ХТГПХ ΧΙ^Π "Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces?" (Isa 51:9); "[TV 5ПТГЭ "with your mighty arm" (Ps

116

BCing a n d T e m p l e in C h r o n i c l e s

titles encountered in Ps 89 for David are also used for the people in Deutero-Isaiah: Israel/Jacob is designated as "ПУ "servant" in Isa 41:8; 44:1, 2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3 (cf. Ps 89:4, 21, 40 [ET 3, 20, 39]), the people (including the 'servant poems') in Isa 41:9; 42:1, 19; 43:10; 49:5, 6; 52:13; 53:11; Τ Π 3 the "chosen one" is used for people in Isa 42:1 (a 'servant poem'); 43:20; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3 (cf. Ps 89:4 [ET 3]).28 It should further be added to these observations that the title 'King' in Deutero-Isaiah is never applied to an Israelite, but rather to YHWH (Isa 41:21; 43:15; 52:7),29 as well as the fact that the royal title, ΓΡΦΏ, is withdrawn from the Davidic dynasty and conferred on the Persian monarch Cyrus (45:1).30 This is, of course, an outcome of YHWH's suzerainty. The only place in which David is mentioned in Deutero-Isaiah is 55:3, which thus deserves further attention. The unit of Isa 55:1-5, which contains the pronouncement about David, consists of two smaller sections: the first (vv. 1-2) announces YHWH's invitation to all Israel and the second ( w . 3-5) contains the promise for an everlasting covenant between Israel and YHWH.31 The verse 2b is clearly transitional in this context: it picks up the theme of w . l - 2 a , but is at the same time parallel with and, therefore, constitutes one unit with v. 3, already bearing a different theme. 2 ... L i s t e n c a r e f u l l y t o m e , a n d eat w h a t is g o o d , a n d d e l i g h t y o u r s e l v e s in r i c h f o o d . 3 I n c l i n e y o u r ear, a n d c o m e t o m e ; listen, so t h a t y o u m a y live. I w i l l m a k e w i t h y o u an everlasting covenant (ГПЙХЗЛ

ГРЧЭ DDV ПГПЭХ1), m y steadfast, s u r e l o v e for D a v i d

Ή0Π). 4 See, I m a d e h i m a w i t n e s s t o t h e p e o p l e s ( m m D'aixV 12?), a

l e a d e r a n d c o m m a n d e r for t h e p e o p l e s . 5 See, y o u shall call n a t i o n s t h a t y o u d o n o t

89:11 [ET 10]) as well as ПТПа _ П5? 2ГЛТ "[V "You have a mighty arm" (Ps 89:14 [ET 13]) cf. f i V n " ' s n r V x i ... IDQW П'ЙУ 'SHT "my arms will rule the peoples ... and for my arm they hope" (Isa 51:5) and also Л1Л' 5ГПТ TiT'tCa"? Щ У Щ У "Awake, awake, put on strength, О arm of YHWH" (Isa 51:9); П т О ' ЛПХ ЛХ^Й1 ^ЗП "the world and all that is in it - you have founded them" (Ps 89:12 [ET 11]) cf. p X ГЛО' ' T ^ X "My hand laid the foundation of the earth" (Isa 48:13 cf. 51:13, 16); ЛХ^ЙТ ^ЗП "the world and all that is in it" (Ps 89:12 [ET 11]) cf. IXVai П'П "the sea and all that fills it" (Isa 42:10); ППХПЗ ЛПХ p O T flQS "The north and the south - you created them" (Ps 89:13 [ET 12]) cf. р Х П mXj? ХТП ГПГГ "YHWH the Creator of the ends of the earth" (Isa 40:28 cf. 40:26; 41:20; 42:5; 43:1, 7, 8, 12, 18); ^ Г й ' ППП "high your right hand" (Ps 89:14 [ET 13]) cf. 'pHX р Й ' З "рПЭЙП "I will uphold you with my victorious right hand" (Isa 41:10 cf. 45:1) cf. O. Eissfeldt, "The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55:1-5", in B.W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (ed.), Israel's Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (London: SCM, 1962) 196-207, on p. 200. 28 Eissfeldt, "Promises of Grace", 204-5. 29 Apart from the cases in which there is a reference to the kings of other nations cf. Isa 41:2; 45:1; 49:7; 23; 52:15, cf. Eissfeldt, "Promises of Grace", 203. 30 Eissfeldt, "Promises of Grace", 203. 31 Although it should rather be put as: "covenant of YHWH to Israel" (cf. т з DDV ЛП-DXI).

Chron's King-Temple relations and the shaping of the Psalter

117

know, and nations that do not know you shall run to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has glorified you.

It has long been recognized that the given text transfers the covenant with David to the whole nation.32 The entire nation of Israel, which is addressed in 2 nd plur. by nVlV ΠΉΠ DD*7 ЛГГШ1 (v. 3), is party to the everlasting covenant in this text. V. 4 then continues with an account of David and his role, using the perfect verbal form: "I made him (ТППЗ) a witness to the peoples ...". In v. 5, which applies an imperfect, there is again a shift from the role of David to Israel's role as a consequence of the covenant's transfer from the former to the latter in v. 3. Williamson notes that knowledge of Isa 55:3 is also reflected in Isa 61:8, which deals with the everlasting covenant with the people and builds upon an understanding of the former." This evidence shows that within the Isaianic tradition which continues after the exile, Isa 55:3 was read as a democratization of the original Davidic covenant. On the other hand, the phrase й'ЗЙХЗЛ "ΤTT ΉΟΠ "my steadfast, sure love for David" is alluded to in 2 Chron 6:42 in a completely different context. There is no hint of the transferring of the blessings once promised to David to the people; the meaning of the phrase П'ЗйХЗП "ΤTT ΉΟΠ in Chronicles is that of the preservation of the Davidic dynasty.

4.1 Summary The strong presence of the Psalm tradition in Chronicles together with a creative approach in dealing with the quoted Psalms suggests, as suggested in the preceding chapter, that the author is related to the circles responsible for the editing of the Psalter. The variations in spelling, the use of synonyms, and the addition of new phrases when compared to the Masoretic Psalter, are indications of a creative treatment of the Psalms, further supporting an affiliation of the author to the abovementioned circles. The Psalms are quoted directly in the most important sections of the book, combining the kingship of YHWH with that of David-Solomon. The most extensive use of quotations is found in 1 Chron 16 at the occasion of the Ark's transfer to Jerusalem. It is significant that David is attributed priestly functions here. The liturgy of thanksgiving following the completion of the preparations for the future temple (1 Chron 29:10-19) is thematically related to 1 Chron 16 and uses the hymnic style of the Psalm 32 In the following I am indebted to H.G.M. Williamson, Variations on a Theme. King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (The Didsbury Lectures 1997; Cumbria: Paternoster, 1998), 118-19. 33 Williamson, Variations, 118.

118

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

tradition regardless of the fact that the Psalms are not quoted directly. As with the liturgy described in 1 Chron 16, it provides a context for David's acting as a king-priest. Furthermore, at the dedication of the Temple Ps 132 is quoted, and, as David did before him, Solomon acts as a priest in this case. It would be quite natural to read this as a product of authorial intent rather than mere coincidence. Both David and Solomon are presented as sacral kings and during the occasion both are closely associated with the Psalm tradition. Predictably, no direct quotations of psalms are found in the part of the book which deals with the history of the divided monarchy; there is merely an allusion to a Psalm in the case of Jehoshaphat's reign (cf. 2 Chron 20:21). These observations corroborate the previous conclusion, namely that the reigns of David and Solomon are set apart from the rest. All the Psalms quoted in Chronicles are present in books IV and V of the canonical MT Psalter, both of which remained fluid into the first century CE. According to Wilson's theory, the high number of untitled Psalms is the product of the redactors' deliberate editorial arrangement, and bears a clear theological purpose. After Ps 89, which was read after the exile as a mark of the failure of the Davidic covenant, the Psalms were introduced in which YHWH is proclaimed as king and where the royal titles are transferred to the representatives of the nation of the pre-monarchic age. This is wholly consistent with the approach of Deutero-Isaiah, which applies the same method for expressing the same theology. For both the editors of the Psalter and Deutero-Isaiah there is a conflict between the kingship of YHWH and that of the earthly king. This approach is further consistent with the theology of the Priestly literary strand. Ρ begins with the creation and ends with the setting up of the sanctuary in Josh 18-19, not continuing into the period of the monarchy.34 According to Ρ everything necessary for community life is established before the monarchy is constituted in Israel.35 At this point we find an essential disagreement with the theology of Chronicles. David and Solomon reign on the throne of YHWH is inherent to Chronicles' theology. The expected ruler is, therefore, seen as a necessary complement to YHWH's reign. A king is not an undesirable although an inevitable part of Israel's political life as seen in the 'Law of the King' or 1 Sam 8. Moses - David represent a succession of Israel's cultic institutions: Tabernacle - Temple. Furthermore, as the Law (represented in Chronicles by the Ark) is received through Moses, the personal organization of the Temple is achieved by David. The two are thus complementary since the Ark with the Law stands at the heart of the Temple, and David's

J. Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 104-5. 35 Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet, 104-5.

Chron's King-Temple relations and the shaping of the Psalter

119

mission in such an understanding completes that of Moses. Therefore, the promise of an everlasting kingdom for all Israel is in Chronicles still believed to reside in the person of a Davidic ruler. As we have seen the Chronicler recognizes Ρ as well as the universalistic approach of DeuteroIsaiah, but both are used to defend the universal dimension of the programmatic kingship of David-Solomon, who sit on the throne of YHWH. The notion of a close tie between the final editors of the Psalter and the author of Chronicles is interesting in light of the fact that their respective approaches to the validity of the Davidic covenant are completely different. This variety of approaches suggests the non-uniformity of the influential Temple Scribes of the late Persian period Judah. In the next chapter, the relations between some post-exilic prophetic texts and Chronicles will be examined.

5. The exilic and post-exilic messianic prophecy related to the theology of Chronicles

The messianic expectations, which are expressed in the prophecies of Isaiah and Micah in the historical context of the still existing Davidic kingdom under Assyrian hegemony, 1 do not cease after the complete annihilation of the monarchy. In the neo-Babylonian and Persian periods those hopes are expressed in the form of appended redactional texts, which complement the vision of the age of salvation and unification of Israel through the rule of the Davidic king. In the preceding chapters, Chronicles was presented as an elaboration on and interpretation of the dynastic promise. This is also the case in the above-mentioned prophetic texts which raise interesting questions about the relations of these texts with Chronicles. In this chapter four messianic prophecies, composed after monarchy, will be analyzed. All these prophecies evince theologically-significant links with Chronicles.

5.1 The dynastic promise of Jer 33:14-26 as an exposition of the 'new covenant' The importance of the relations between the prophecy of Jer 33:14-26 and Chronicles is clear if we realize that both texts present their message as a reply to the same prophecy of Jeremiah: For thus says the LORD: Only when Babylon's seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfil to you my promise (Э1Ш '"DT) and bring you back to this place (Jer 29:10).

Jer 33:14 which is the introductory statement to the redactional part of Jer 33:14-26 clearly alludes to Jer 29:10: 2

The term 'messianic' has no eschatological connotations here. W.A.M. Beuken, Haggai—Sacharja 1—8. Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967), 303. 2

The exilic and post-exilic messianic prophecy related to Chronicles

Jer 33:14

2 Chron 36:20-22

The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will fulfill the promise (Э1Ш "Din) made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

20

121

He took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, 21 to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had made up for its sabbbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years. 22 In the first year of King Cyras of Persia, in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD stirred up the spirit of King Cyras of Persia so that he sent a herald throughout all his kingdom and also declared in a written edict...

The same prophecy thus serves as a point of departure for a future hope for the redactor of Jeremiah as well as for the Chronicler. An equally-important fact is that both present their vision within the same framework: Dynasty Temple - Torah - Land - 'All Israel'. In the case of Jer 33:14-26, which is a reinterpretation of 23:5-6, we must take into consideration that the text forms one premeditated unit with the new covenant presented in Jer 31:31-34. This is achieved through the inclusio of 33:19-26 with 31:35-37. These texts are appended to both respective prophecies, serving as their coda and defining the whole part as a new, enriched, explanation to the 'new covenant' in Jer 31:31-34. The promised Лр*ТХ ΠΏ^ - a new Davidic ruler (33:15) - is therefore regarded as belonging to the age in which the promises of the new covenant would materialize. In order to achieve a more profound understanding of the 'redactional prophecy' in Jer 33:14-26 its wider context will be examined in greater detail. The core of the prophecy of an 'ideal future age' in Jeremiah lies in the oracle of the 'New Covenant' announced in 31:31-34. In the present text of Jeremiah this is just one of the series of the five salvation oracles which follow one another ( w . 23-40). The text which precedes the oracle (31:15-22) is built mostly on the root ΠΊΦ1. Although explicitly used to denote the return to the Promised Land, in the case of Ephraim the word is clearly linked to repentance (v. 19): For after I had turned away I repented ('ЛЙПЗ 'aitC' and after I was discovered, I struck my thigh; I was ashamed, and I was dismayed because I bore the disgrace of my youth.

122

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

The whole oracle is concluded by an exhortation ( w . 21-22): Set up road markers for yourself, make yourself guideposts; consider well the highway, the road by which you went. Return ('Site'), О virgin Israel, return ('aitC") to these your cities. How long will you waver, О faithless daughter (ГПЗИС'П ПЗП)? For the LORD has created a new thing on the earth: a woman encompasses a man.

The relation between 'Э1Ш and ΓΠΠΙΦΉ is significant. Both words are derived from the same root (ЗИУ). However, while in the first case its explicit meaning is a 'return to the Land' in the latter the implicit reference is to the moral state of Israel. This, at least, is the understanding of the early translations of the LXX (θυγάτηρ ήτιμωμέυη) and Peshita (brt' tybt'), while the rendering of the Vulgata (filia vaga) does not seem to refer to anything but 'return to the land'. A different understanding of D1U7 reveals its (probably intentional) ambiguity in the given context. After the oracle of w . 15-22 a series of the five 'salvation oracles' follows ( w . 23-40). The first one ( w . 23-26) uses at its beginning once again a derivation from the root ПИУ, but this time in another meaning: the same root that in the vv. 15-22 expressed a 'return to the land' with the connotation of 'repentance' is here used in the meaning of 'restoration of fortunes' to the nation: Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Once more they shall use these words in the land of Judah and in its towns when I restore their fortunes (ШТП1С'~Г1Х Olttb): "The LORD bless you, О abode of righteousness, О holy hill!" (Jer 31:23)

This change in meaning paves the way to the announcement of the New Covenant, which is the subject matter of the oracle in w . 31-34. Such progress of thinking, based on the usage of the catch-word of the preceding text while transforming it to the new meaning in the following one, shows the continuity between the two texts. Consequently, the passage of vv. 15-25 needs to be viewed as one unit together with the following block of salvation oracles. Moreover, the unity of the second (vv. 27-28) and the third oracles (vv. 31-34) must, in all probability, be acknowledged as well since both are dependant on the same text of Hosea (2:20-25).

The exilic and post-exilic messianic prophecy related to Chronicles

123

Hos 2:20-25

Jer 31:27-34

I will make for you a covenant on that day with the wild animals, the birds of the air, and the creeping things of the ground; and I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land; and I will make you lie down in safety.

And just as I have watched over them to pluck up and break down, to overthrow, destroy, and bring evil, so I will watch over them to build and to plant, says the LORD.

And I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the LORD.

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, "Know the LORD," for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; (for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more).

On that day I will answer, says the LORD, I will answer the heavens and they shall answer the earth; and the earth shall answer the grain, the wine, and the oil, and they shall answer Jezreel; and I will sow him for myself in the land.

The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of humans and the seed of animals.

... I will say to Lo-ammi, "You are my people"; and he shall say, "You are my God."

I will be their God, and they shall be my people

In terms of imagery and order of the elements the text of Jeremiah is a free adaptation of the prophecy of Hosea, but, on the other hand, both covenants share the same structural components. Moreover, the combination of the phrases ' s o w i n g of the nation in the land' and 'knowing of Y H W H ' are, in the Old Testament, unique to Hosea and Jeremiah.

124

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

What is strikingly different in our case is the addition of the unconditional forgiveness of sins, only present in Jeremiah, which, in turn, brings about the secondary addition of vv. 29-30 drawn from Ezek 18:2.3 In relation to v. 34 the role of the addition of vv. 29-30 is not very difficult to ascertain: it has a 'corrective function' for v. 34 which, as it stands, ensures the unconditional transformation for all, without exception.4 Another apparent point of difference between Hosea and Jeremiah is that while the 'making of the covenant' in Hosea is directly connected with peace in the Land, in Jeremiah it is bound to 'knowledge of YHWH', and is the kernel of his message. In spite of the observed differences which stem from the free adaptation of Hosea's text by Jeremiah, the common features of both texts are best explained by the dependence of Jer 31:27-34 on Hos 2:20-25. This is supported by the fact that there is a deep dependence of Jeremiah on Hosea's prophecy in general.5 One of the important consequences of the abovementioned considerations is that the block of w . 15-34 was originally composed as one unit which does not leave any space for a diachronical approach to this part of the text. If vv. 15-20 are original to Jeremiah, as is mostly assumed, the same would apply for vv. 31-34. Another consequence is that the future period announced, in which the change of destiny will come (v. 23), is the same as that prophesied in the remaining oracles of the vv. 23-34 block. In other words, the events connected to the age of the new covenant are originally described in the oracles of the vv. 23-34 block, not only in that of vv. 31-34. 6 Furthermore, the new covenant is a part of the larger context with the concept of repentance ( w . 15-22) but, in the present canonical form, also with the theology of retribution (vv. 29-30). V. 34 should be examined in this context: No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, "Know the LORD," for (Ό) they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for (Ό) I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.

The difficulty of its interpretation follows from the awkward syntax, and the fact that, while the oracle in w . 31-34 is unconditional as a whole, the clause following the second Ό in this verse seems to refer to a previous act The phrase: 'die for own sin' is found in Ezekiel in other places as well (3:18, 19), but it is not appropriate to Jeremiah, cf. W.L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah (2 vol.; Philadelphia, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 163. 4 W. Rudolph, Jeremia (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1947), 183. The same redactional insertion can be detected in 32:19b, which corrects the information of the preceding v. 18. 5 For the overview of the other places see, Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 45-7. 6 In the present discussion I am not dealing with vv. 35-40 as they are not important in this regard.

The exilic and post-exilic messianic prophecy related to Chronicles

125

of repentance. The problem is only explicable if the repentance of Israel is taken for granted from the point of view of the author. Since exile is the experience which necessarily leads to repentance, as it is assumed in w . 18-19, the author can unconditionally state the announcement of the new covenant. In order to understand this we should note the significance of v. 28 in relation to 1:10, from which it is clearly derived:

Jer 1:10, 12

Jer 31:28

See, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up (Wina*?) and to pull down (рГПУ), to destroy (TnxnV) and to overthrow (ОПЛУ), to build and to plant (VHMVl rmnV) ... I am watching f>3X TjW) over my word to perform it (v. 12).

Just as I have watched (ТПрй>') over them to pluck up (Ф'ЧЛЗ^) and break down (рлзУ), to overthrow (0ЧЛУ), destroy (ТЗХЛУ), and bring evil (2ЛЛУ), so I will watch over them to build and to plant (VHMVl ТПЗУ), says the LORD.

The time of punishment is past in the era described in Jer 31:23-40 and the preceding exhortations to repent are no longer necessary. As follows from the secondary w . 29-30, however, the future reality of knowing YHWH will not prevent everybody from rebellious actions. Nevertheless, the nation will no longer suffer for the iniquity of individuals and the sins of the past will no longer be remembered. The prophecy of the new covenant is in an altered form repeated in the oracle of Jer 32:36-41. In its context it is a part of the text of vv. 16-44, in which the style and phraseology of language is Deuteronomistic.7 The text is developing the ideas of w . 1-15, but, in Jer 32:36-44 the link to the new covenant prophecy of the preceding chapter is re-encountered. The knowledge of YHWH is presented as unconditional through different words in v. 39: I will give them one heart8 and one way (ЛПХ "|4T ЛПХ 3*7), that they may fear me for all time, for their own good and the good of their children after them.

It is expressed through an emphasis on the common knowledge of Israel which is again united from all the lands in which they where they were

E.W. Nicholson, Jeremiah 26-52 (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 79. 8 MT (ЧПХ), LXX (ετέραν) and Syriac (hdt'). The diversity of the textual evidence to the phrase 'one heart' is impossible to solve conclusively. While the Syriac is probably an assimilation to Ezek 18:31, cf. McKane, Jeremiah II, 850, the texts of MT ЛПХ and LXX Vorlage ЧПХ could, with equal probability, be original.

126

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

scattered. Through divine action the heart of Israel will be prepared for participation in the covenant which is described elsewhere as circumcision of the heart (Deut 30:6), replacing a heart of stone with a heart of flesh (Ezek 36:26) or, as in Jer 31:33, as the inscription of the Law upon the heart of man. 9 The whole phrase 'one heart and one w a y ' is best taken as a hendiadys with the meaning of complete compatibility of will and way of life. 10 The oracle of Jer 3 2 : 3 6 - 4 1 is validated through an everlasting covenant which is parallel to the new covenant in 31:31-34. This variation of the new covenant prophecy is expressed more like a program for restoration, and not merely as a simple non-realistic vision of the future as the original text of Jeremiah presents in 31:31-34. The text of 3 2 : 3 6 - 4 4 is further developed in Chapter 33 and introduced as rP3ty 1ΓΡΏΤ - , ?Ν ГЛГР~*1ТТ. The description of the restoration of the land through healing (SD*1) and forgiveness (Π*72) in vv. 6 - 8 is also used in 2 Chron 7:14.

Jer 3 3 : 6 - 8

2 C h r o n 7:14

For thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the houses of this city and the houses of the kings of Judah that were torn down ... I am going to bring it recovery and healing (ХЭЧЙ1 ПЭЧХ П^-П^Й ΉΠ) I will heal them ... and I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me.

If my people name humble my face, and ways ... I will their land.

who are called by my themselves, pray, seek turn from their wicked forgive their sin and heal

The healing mentioned in Jeremiah is related to the city of Jerusalem on the one hand, and to the destroyed houses of Jerusalem and those of the Judean kings on the other hand, both mentioned in the preceding w . 4-5. 1 1 The similar usage in Chronicles relates 'healing' to the Land. Apart from L a m 2:13 12 there is no further example for the use of the term with a city or the land as an object in addition to Jeremiah and Chronicles. In general, is only used with non-living matter as an object, apart from the already mentioned texts, in the stories of Elijah and Elisha, and in Ezek 9

G.L. Keown, et al., Jeremiah 26-52 (WBC 27; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1995), 160. Keown, Jeremiah 26-52, 160. 11 Keown, Jeremiah 26-52, 171. 12 Although Lamentations cannot be attributed directly to Jeremiah, a high dependence on Jeremianic phraseology is found especially in Lam 2, cf. Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 84-5. 10

The exilic and post-exilic messianic prophecy related to Chronicles

127

47:8-10: Elijah is repairing the altar of YHWH (Л17Г ΓΏΤΖΤΠΧ XDT1) (1 Kings 18:30), Elisha is healing naught water by salt - "(Elisha) threw the salt into it, and said, 'Thus says the LORD, I have made this water wholesome'" (nVxn ετζΛ Т1ХНЛ m r r n^Q a w ' - i ^ ) (2 Kings 2:21-22), and Ezekiel states that the stream flowing from the Temple will heal the barren waters of the Dead Sea - "when it enters the sea, the sea of stagnant waters, the water will become fresh" (•''ΏΠ 1XD131 Π'Ή^ΊΏΠ H^n-VX Лй*Л 1X31) (Ezek 47:8-10). The usage of SD1 in 2 Chron 7:14 is apparently closer to Jer 33:6-8 than to any other of these texts especially when in both 2 Chron 7:14 and Jer 33:6-8 the parallel mentioning of forgiveness is considered. It is significant that is parallel with QbVJ, which links this text to the agenda of Chronicles as well as to the 'Davidic' redaction of Ezekiel as will be shown below. Later, in v. 11, the image of restoration is connected with the thanksgiving liturgy loosely quoting the phrase from Pss 106; 107; 118; 136: "O give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; for his steadfast love endures forever." In Chroniclers it is used at two significant liturgical occasions. In both of these occasions the Levites, under the instruction of the king, participate in the historical event which reveals YHWH as the sovereign ruler over the world. 1 Chron 16:34 uses the phrase in the quotation of Ps 106, one of the three Psalms recited at the occasion of the bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem. In this liturgy the covenant with Abraham, the kingship of YHWH and his praise as the creator are the most important issues. The second occasion, at 2 Chron 20, depicts a desperate situation in the past (vv. 12-13) in which the coalition of Moabites and Ammonites with some Meunites rise against Jehoshaphat for battle. The King in his prayer for deliverance stresses YHWH's sovereignty over the kingdoms of the nations, the Covenant with Abraham, and the presence of the Temple where Israel has an access to YHWH if His intervention is required. If we place the Ark for the Temple, we find a similar structure as that of 1 Chron 16. The quotation of the Psalm, as sung by the Levites appointed by the King is performed when YHWH fights for Israel on His own and is victorious. Therefore, the Levites and the King are responsible for the victory, as they serve as the earthly representatives of YHWH. Returning to the text of Jer 33, we find the same framework as that of Chronicles. The Covenant with Abraham is found in the promise to restore and heal the Land, which leads to Dl^tf?, the crucial motif of the whole vv. 1 - 1 3 section.13 YHWH as creator is presented at the introduction to the

Although the restoration in v.7 is promised to both Judah and Israel, the Codex Sinaiticus with some other LXX mss preserves 'Jerusalem' instead of Israel. These are probably the bearers

128

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

oracle: "Thus says the LORD who made the earth, the LORD who formed it to establish it - the LORD is his name" (v.2), and His kingship is expressed by the rendering of the name ΓΠΧΠΧ ГЛГР instead of the original Π Ί Π 1 (v. II).14

These links between this part of Jeremiah and Chronicles may point either towards the same circles behind the composition of both, or to a reliance of the Chronicler on this text. From those two options the former seems unlikely since Jer 33:1-13 evinces no interest in the restoration of the monarchy which so essential for the Chronicler. This interest, on the other hand, is the subject matter of the following text, which is missing from the LXX but has been partly preserved in Qumran in the 4QJer c manuscript. In w . 14-26 the dynastic promise is made to David, but is at the same time combined with the covenant with the Levites. Here again, as in Ezekiel and Chronicles, the synthesis of the Ρ and Dtr traditions is found as the everlasting covenant for the priesthood is the tradition of Ρ taken from Num 25:12 (cf. Mai 2:4-9; Neh 13:29). The text of Jer 33:14-26 is usually viewed as the conclusion to the extended version of the original 'Book of Consolation' (30-31). There is no consensus in explaining its omission from the LXX.15 Textual criticism has shown that there is no reason to suppose misreading through homoioteleuton, homoioarcton16 or other explanations of an accidental omission of the text. On the other hand, it would also be very difficult to explain it as a deliberate omission. The only reasonable approach to the problem appears to be taking

of the original reading since the restored territory described in w . 12-13 is the territory of Judah only, cf. J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), 292. 14 Cf. Ps 106:1; 107:1; 118:1; 136:1. The explicit meaning of ГПХЗХ ΠΤΡ as 'king YHWH' in Jeremiah can be found in Jer 51:57 and elsewhere in the later prophetic tradition in Isa 44:6; Zee 14:16 or Mai 1:14. 15 See W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah XXVI — LII (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986-1996), clxii-xiv. 16 Homoioarcton Π ... Π, as a solution to the problem, has been proposed in the commentary of J.R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36 (AB 21B; New York: Doubleday, 2004), 538; such an omission of the text, based on a definite article as the only point of resemblance, is, however, highly unlikely. The other examples of the omission in 1 Sam 10:27 or Ezek 36:23b-28, adduced as a similar occasion, do not elucidate the problem. As for 1 Sam 10:27, it is not clear whether the text found in 4QSam a and Josephus (Ant 6.68-71), following after 1 Sam 10:27, is the omission or addition. In any case, several studies show that it can plausibly be explained as an addition to the given text; cf. D. Barthelemy, Critique textuelle de lAncien Testament. Vol 1. (OBO 50/1; Frieburg: Editions Universitaires, 1982) 166—72, S. Pisano, Additions and Omissions in the Book of Samuel: The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Masoretic, LXX and Qumran texts (OBO 57; Freiburg: Editions Universitäres, 1984) 91-8, and Herbert E.D., "4QSam a and Its Relationship to the LXX: An Exploration in Stemmatological Analysis", in B. A. Taylor (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (SBLSCS 45; Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1997), 51. The other example of Ezek 36:23b-28 does not serve as a similar occasion since it is here a case of homoioteleuton based on a resemblance of the whole phrase, not just one consonant.

The exilic and post-exilic messianic prophecy related to Chronicles

129

the text as a later addition to the already existing block of w . 1-13, which is also supported by a different style from the preceding w . 1-13. The dynastic promise in Jer 33 is a subsequent exposition of the promise of the future ruler presented in 23:5-6. 17 The theme of the 'righteous branch for David', developed in Je 33:14-26, is connected to the 'theme of shepherds' (vv. 12-13) as is the case in Jer 23:1-4, 5-6. We can assume, therefore, that the context of 23:1-6 serves as a model for the redactor who inserts 33:14-26 to vv. 1-13 as a development of the mentioned theme. Since the former is itself a later redactional text,18 Jer 33:14-26 should be positioned even later. Differently from Jer 23:5, the text of 33:16 links the name ΠΊΓΡ to Jerusalem, rather than to the Davidic ruler - the future Zedekiah. The play on words in which has thus been lost, pointing to the secondary nature of Jer 33:14-26 in relation to Jer 23:5-6. The mentioned shift to Jerusalem can plausibly be explained by the intention of the author to create a link with the preceding text of w . 1-13 which is centred, although not exclusively, on Jerusalem. The addition of w . 14-26 is thus meant to form a single unit with the preceding text linking together a new covenant prophecy with the dynastic promise. This is also the role of the phrase "to restore the fortunes" (ГТОЮ'-ПХ TIP'S) [qere] in 33:26 (cf. 32:7, ll). 19 It is mentioned at the beginning that the inclusio of 33:19-26 with 31:35-37 defines 33:14-26 as a new, enriched, explanation of the 'new covenant' text of Jer 31:31-34, and that the new Davidic ruler mentioned in 33:15 is therefore regarded as belonging to the age in which the promises of the new covenant would materialize. The preceding analysis has shown that in Jer 31:31-34; 32:36-44; 33:1-13, 14-26 we find the original prophecy of 31:31-34 subsequently interpreted and supplemented at different stages of the later period. Importantly, the whole part of Jer 31-33 as a block is set within the same frame-

The prophecy concerning ПЙ2 in Jer 23:5 may be an intentional link and contrast to 5ПТ in Jer 22:30, in which Jehoiakim's progeny is rejected from kingship. By such a means Jer 23, as a redactional text, would claim the restoration of the Davidic kingdom in opposition to Jer 22, cf. W.H. Rose, "Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period", in R. Albertz and Bob Becking (ed.), Yahwism after the Exile. Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era. Papers read at the First Meeting of the European Association for Biblical Studies, Utrecht, 6—9 August, 2000, (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003) 168-185, on p. 178. 18 Clements points out that Jeremiah's ruling out of any possible return to the throne of Jehoiachin or his descendants (22:24-7, 28-30) strikingly contrasts with the assurance of the future Davidic dynasty in Jer 33:14-26 and 23:5-6. At the same time it is unlikely that Jeremiah personally attaches much importance to this issue after Zedekiah's removal from his throne, and the hope for the restoration of the Davidic rule is, therefore, the product of editorial work; cf. R.E. Clements Old Testament Prophecy. From Oracles to Canon (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 227-8. 19 Cf. Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 230.

130

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

work as in Chronicles: Dynasty - Temple - Law - Land - 'All Israel', thus displaying the same concern for the post-exilic community. The part of 33:1-13 evinces strong formal links to the theological view of Chronicles on the one hand, but on the other hand, the lack of interest in the renewal of the Davidic dynasty makes it difficult to imagine that the same circles are responsible for these compositions. The influence of this particular text on Chronicles would therefore be a more plausible suggestion. The last addition of 33:14-26 already links the new covenant age with a Davidic ruler, the everlasting dynasty, and the everlasting Levitical priesthood. In spite of the great attention paid to the Levites, who are linked to David in Chronicles there is no hint of an everlasting Levitical covenant equal to the Davidic one as in Jer 33. Of course, the inseparability of the Palace and Temple in Chronicles assumes an everlasting Levitical succession together with the everlasting Davidic dynasty. However, what is established and guaranteed by YHWH Himself is only the everlasting Davidic dynasty. The Levitical priesthood is under the full responsibility of David, who stands at the head of all cultic affairs. David's role in Jer 33 is therefore not to intervene with the cult, unlike the case of Chronicles in which the Levites fill a prominent position only because they are assigned by David. This implicit limitation of the competence of a Davidic ruler is consistent with Ezekiel's rendering of the title Х ^ З . The reference to an everlasting Levitical covenant suggests that Levitical circles, who most likely composed Chronicles, may also be responsible for Jer 33:14-26. Yet a different approach to a future Davidic ruler can be discerned in both texts.

5.2 Ezek 37:22-28 as a model for the exposition of the dynastic promise in Chronicles In the Chronicler's version of the dynastic promise Solomon is announced as a ruler who will build the Temple, will be considered by YHWH as his son, and whose throne will be established forever. In the part of 1 Chron 22:9-10, in which the beginning of the narrative part about Solomon is encountered, we find elements which are not entirely explicable from the text of the dynastic promise: (1) 1 Chron 17:9-10 links the theme of peace to the reign of David, not Solomon as 1 Chron 22; (2) while in 1 Chron 22 'peace' serves as an explanation to why David cannot build the temple and why it is entrusted to Solomon; 1 Chron 17:10 links the theme of peace to the possession of the Land rather than the Temple. The matter of the refusal to authorize the construction of the Temple is in 1 Chron 17 phrased in a rather different manner if compared to 1 Chron 22.

The exilic and post-exilic messianic prophecy related to Chronicles

131

1 Chron 17:9-10a

1 Chron 22:7-13

Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the LORD: You shall not build me a house to live in. For I have not lived in a house since the day I brought out Israel to this very day, but I have lived in a tent and a tabernacle. Wherever I have moved about among all Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people, saying, Why have you not built me a house of cedar? ...

David said to Solomon, "My son, I had planned to build a house to the name of the LORD my God. But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood in my sight on the earth.

I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall wear them down no more, as they did formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will subdue all your enemies.

See, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of peace. I will give him peace from all his enemies on every side; 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 a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.'

A closer look at the text of the Davidic prophecy in Ezekiel reveals that an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the dynastic promise found in 1 Chron 22 and 28 is closer to this tradition than to the dynastic promise itself. Ezek 34; 36 and 37 build an expectation of a Davidic ruler and the renewal of Israel on the basis of the promises of the Priestly text of Lev 26:3—13:20 If you follow my statutes and keep my commandments and observe them faithfully, I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its produce, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit (34:26-7, cf. 36:8). Your threshing shall overtake the vintage, and the vintage shall overtake the sowing; you shall eat your bread to the full, and live securely in your land. And I will grant peace in the land, and you shall lie down, and no one shall make you afraid (34:28); I will remove dangerous animals from the land (cf. 34:25), and no sword shall go through your land. You shall give chase to your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. Five of you shall give chase to a hundred, and a hundred of you shall give chase to ten thousand; your enemies shall fall before you by the sword. I will look with favor upon you and M. Weinfeld, "Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel", ZAW 88 (1976) 17-56, on pp. 46-7; D.I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel. Chapters 25-48 (Grand Rapids, Ml/Cambridge UK: Eerdmans, 1998) 304-6.

132

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

make you fruitful and multiply you (36:9-11); and I will maintain my covenant with you. You shall eat old grain long stored, and you shall have to clear out the old to make way for the new. I will place my dwelling in your midst, and I shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be my people (37:26-27). I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be their slaves no more; I have broken the bars of your yoke and made you walk erect (34:27; cf. Jer 30:8).

The redactional nature of the mentioned texts in Ezekiel is generally recognized. The original prophecy of 34:1-16, 31 was at some point supplemented by vv. 17-30 and demarcated with a 'resumptive repetition' found in v. 17 рЗХХ ЛЗПХЧ) and v. 31 рЗХХ |ПХ1). It should be noted in this regard, as does Rofe, that the original and the redactional layers of the text respectively present different solutions to the problem of who will be the new shepherd after the condemnation of the former shepherds, dealt with in vv. 1-16. One answer of the original stratum (vv. 1-16, 31) is that YHWH himself "will search for his sheep and seek them out" (v. 11), while the redactional layer mentions a 'new David' as a future shepherd.21 The part of 34:23-31, dealing with a 'new David', takes the preceding themes of shepherding (vv. 2-16) and the covenantal theme, implicit in vv. 2-22, and elaborates them according to the new ideas of a Davidic ruler and a 'covenant of peace'. 22 The Deuteronomic influence is traceable in Ezek 34:26 where "|"Ü is employed twice; it is absent from Lev 26:3-13, but, on the other hand, it is frequent in Deut 28:2-14, which functions as the counterpart of Lev 26:3-13. 23 The theme of Davidic ruler linked to the 'covenant of peace' find its expression in yet another redactional text - Ezek 37:24b-28. This text is a modifying extension of the preceding verses of the same oracle (vv. 21-24a), serving as a final synthesis and a conclusion to Chapters 34-37 and at the same time also as a program for Chapters 40-48. The fact that the whole oracle follows the thematic sequence of the preceding prophecy of Ezek 36-37 points to the redactor's intention to see his contribution as an organic part of this larger section. Thus 37:22 thematically follows on 36:24 and 37:16-21; 37:23, 24b-25 follows on 36:25-28 and 37:26 follows on 36:29b~30. The last parallel reveals that the meaning of Dl*?^ ΓΡ""ϋ in 37:26 relates to the 'wellbeing' of Israel:

Cf. A. Rofe, "The Battle of David and Goliath - Folklore, Theology, Eschatology", in B.A. Levine and J. Neusner (ed.), Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987) 117-151, on pp. 134-5. 22 L.C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48 (WBC 29; Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990), 159. 23 Block, Ezekiel 25-48, 305. However, it would be a mistake to refer to the Dtr redaction in the chapter. The language is not as Deuteronomic as such a redaction would yield.

The exilic and post-exilic messianic prophecy related to Chronicles

133

I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. I will make the fruit of the tree and the produce of the field abundant, so that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations (Ezek 36:29b—30).

This is consistent with Jer 33:6 (cf. 8:15; 14:19) with its use of П^Ш1 parallelism with SD1 in the vision of a new future: I am going to bring it recovery and healing (ХЭЧЙ1 ПЭЧХ); I will heal them and reveal to them abundance of prosperity and security (ПЙХ1 DlVtC") (Jer 33:6).

This corresponds to an expansion of the Chronicler's use of П^Ш1 as 'peace' (1 Chron 22:9) to 'wellbeing' in 2 Chron 7:14. Unlike the case of Ezek 37:21-24a David is designated as Х 1 ^] instead of in vv. 24b—28, and a new theme of the sanctuary (Wlpfo) in the midst of the nation is introduced here side by side with the 'covenant of peace' (Dl*?^ ΓΡ""ϋ) - an 'everlasting covenant' (D*7TV I V O ) for Israel. The use of the term X 1 ^] rather than 1*7Q is prompted by David's close connection with the sanctuary. Whilst David is the chief representative of the people, the Temple stands at the centre, at the midst of the nation, and, therefore, the ruler is necessarily connected with the cult. The author deliberately avoids the title 'King' in which the cult is at stake to avoid, in turn, any further connotation of a 'sacral kingship' with the future ruler. This befits the character of w . 24b-28 as programmatic for Chapters 40-48. In Ezek 43:8 we find a clear expression of the idea that a Palace-Temple system is incompatible with the religion of the nation: 8 When they placed their threshold by my threshold and their doorposts beside my doorposts, with only a wall between me and them, they were defiling my holy name by their abominations that they committed; therefore I have consumed them in my anger.

This is also the reason why the depiction of a civic ruler ( Х ^ З ) in Chapters 40-48 allows us to to define what he should not be rather than what he actually is. The everlasting covenant with Israel is reminiscent of both Abraham in Ρ (Gen 17:7), and David in Dtr (2 Sam 23:5). In the present context the two are tied together24 combining the Ρ and Dtr sources in the same manner as Chronicles, juxtaposing the quotation of the Ps 105 that mentions the Abrahamic Covenant on the one hand, and 1 Chron 17 with the dynastic promise on the other hand. Moreover, the exposition of the dynastic promise in 1 Chron 22:9-13; 28:1-10 complements the message of the former with the issues found in the oracle of Ezek 37:22-27 but not in 1 Chron 17:11-14.

Allen,Ezekiel 20-48, 194.

134 1 Chron 17:7-14

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

1 Chron 22:9-13;

Ezek 37:22-27

28:1-10 I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons (v. 11).

See, a son shall be born to you (22:9)

he shall be a man of peace (ЛГГПЙ WX). I will give him peace (iV Tnram) from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon (naVttO, and I will give peace and quiet (üjWl mV®') to Israel in his days (22:9).

I will make with them a covenant of peace (DlV®' ГГО) (v. 26)

I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever (llc-12).

The LORD God of Israel chose me (David) from all my ancestral house to be king (Ч^й) over Israel forever ... among my father's sons he took delight in making me king over all Israel (28:4) ... I will establish his (Solomon) royal throne in Israel forever. He shall build a house for my name (22:10; 28:6).

I shall make them into one nation in the country, on the mountains of Israel, and one king ("[Va) is to be king of them all; they will no longer form two nations, nor be two separate kingdoms (v. 22) ... David shall be their prince (Χ'&Ί) forever. I will establish my sanctuary in the midst of them for ever. My dwelling place shall be with them (v. 25).

I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me (v. 13a).

He shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him (22:10; 28:6).

I will be their God, and they shall be my people (v. 27).

The exilic and post-exilic messianic prophecy related to Chronicles

135

I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you (v. 13b).

Then you will prosper if you are careful to observe the statutes and the ordinances that the LORD commanded Moses for Israel ...

I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more (v. 9).

Observe and search 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 forever (28:8).

They shall follow my ordinances and be careful to observe my statutes (v. 24b).

They shall live in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, in which your ancestors lived; they and their children and their children's children shall live there forever (v. 25).

The everlasting covenant for Israel ΠΉΠ is in 1 Chron 22; 28 parallel with Israel's covenant through Solomon. The time of peace during his reign (üpW'l niV^') is explained through the etymology of Solomon's name (ΠΖΛΐϊ)1). The covenantal formula: "I will be their God, and they shall be my people" in Ezekiel, is juxtaposed with the statement about the Temple, and corresponds with: "He shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him" in Chronicles. Most importantly, both Chr 22:9-13; 28:1-10 and Ezek 37:24b-28 are structured on the same framework: Dynasty - Temple Torah - Land - 'All Israel' both therefore displaying exactly the same concerns for the post-exilic community. Differently from Chronicles, however, Ezekiel's prophecy puts the promise of the new age as an unconditional consequence of the promise of the 'new heart' and 'YHWH's spirit' found in 36:25-27: I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone

136

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

Although in Chronicles we do not find such an intervention of YHWH, the prophecy about the new age is clearly present. It implicitly bears the presupposition that the nation of Israel is able to achieve the state described by the 'new heart' without such intervention. How can that state be reached then? As with Ezekiel, the Chronicler considers the Temple to be the very core of Israel's existence. However, in Chronicles it is emphasized that the Ark of the Covenant is placed in the holiest of places (•''Ф'ЧртТ ВПр) in the Temple (2 Chron 5:7). At the same time we are told that the content of the Ark is nothing but the Law of Moses: There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets that Moses put there at Horeb, where the LORD made a covenant with the people of Israel after they came out of Egypt (2 Chron 5:10; c f 6 : l l ) .

As I have already shown, the occasion of the bringing of the Ark is depicted in a solemnity which is all the more highlighted against the Vorlage in an addition of 2 Chron 5:11-13. By means of the quotation of Ps 132 it is also stated that YHWH's presence in the Temple is conditioned by the 'Ark of YHWH's might' ("|ТУ fHN). The positive attitude towards the Temple thus means that one keeps the commandments of the Law which are kept in the holiest place in the Temple. These two are therefore tied together exclusively. The golden epoch of Solomon's reign is thus characterized, above all, by his devotion to the Temple and by his blamelessness at the same time. Both the Temple and the Law bear the same meaning for Israel: access to YHWH.25 In the context of Ezekiel's prophecy, the image of the 'new heart' and the 'spirit of YHWH', which seem to be necessary presuppositions, are for the Chronicler achievable without direct intervention of YHWH. There is no need to change the heart of a man for a new one; repentance is necessary (cf. 2 Chron 7:14) while the spirit of YHWH is in the Temple.

Since the Ark is no longer present in the Temple by the time when Chronicles is written it is clear that, for the author, it serves as a symbol of the Mosaic Law-Temple relations.

The exilic and post-exilic messianic prophecy related to Chronicles

137

5.3 The David-Moses typology in the prophecy of Deutero-Zechariah 5.3.1 Zech 9:9-10 9 Rejoice greatly, О daughter Zion! Shout aloud, О daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious (VtClJI jTHX) is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. 10 He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war-horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall command peace (DlV®' ЧЭ"7) to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.

This part of the larger poem (vv. 9-17) stands as a complement to the preceding text, which describes how the rule of YHWH will extend to foreign nations. The text is not introduced as a separate oracle, and, in spite of the different character of the message if compared to the threatening tone of the previous passage, it functions as a coda to what precedes it.26 The first thing which can be observed is that the oracle does not specifically refer to a Davidic king. However, its addressee - Zion, Jerusalem - in the context of to the coming of the king, the reunification of Ephraim and Judah, and the king's dominion reaching "from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth" (cf. Ps 72:8) - hardly leaves any interpretative space for anyone but a Davidic ruler. The aforementioned characteristics are indeed so inherent to the Davidic kingship that an explicit indication would have been superfluous. This is very similar to Ps 72, in which only a redactional superscription together with the final editorial remark, that the psalm closes the collection of David's prayers, informs the reader that the descendant of David is referred to. The given extension of the empire corresponding to Ps 72:8, the rule of ΠΊ*?^, and the international fame point more precisely to the idealization of Solomon's rule encountered in the previous messianic prophecies portraying a golden age (Isa 9:5-6 [ET 6-7]; 11:1-10; cf. Mic 4:1-5). 27 The oracle is similar in style to the prophecies found in Zeph 3:14-15 and Zech 2:14 (ET 10). The common feature of the last two prophecies mentioned is that the source of rejoicing with which each of them opens is YHWH's presence as a king over Israel.28 This is different from Zech 9:9-10, in which the rule of a human king is announced. As we have al26

Cf. D.L. Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 & Malachi (London: SCM Press, 1995), 56. See Chapter 3.4. This picture of the king is again reminiscent of 1 Kings 1:32-3, 38, 44, in which Solomon at the occasion of his coronation is sitting on a she-mule (ГПЧЭ). A direct allusion to this text is, however, unlikely, since in spite of the great attention which is paid by the author of Zech 9:9 in identifying the animal - a donkey (Ч1ЙП), on a colt, the foal of a donkey ГЛЗПХ~|Э TV) - he does not mention a she-mule (ГПЧ5). 27

28

Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 & Malachi, 57.

138

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

ready seen, the evidence points to a Davidic ruler although there is no unanimous agreement on this matter. Sweeney, for example, entirely excluded the possibility that a Davidic king is alluded to on the basis of the 'king's itinerary' described in vv. 1-8. "A Davidic monarch," he argues, "would not have approached Jerusalem from Aram, Phoenicia, and Philistia - that is the approach of an invader or a foreign monarch - and he would not have threatened the cities unless he were to approach them from Jerusalem." 29 Sweeney then continues to suggest that the invading monarch may be identified with Darius I, who supports the reconstruction of the Temple and thus offers the prospect of peace and restoration to Jerusalem and to Judah. When the reign of Darius is threatened by a series of revolts from within the empire it becomes a threat to the prosperity of Judah. This may be the reason why the Judean author is concerned about the possibility Darius' victory.30 This theory assumes that all the allusions in vv. 1 - 7 refer to the specific historical events, and that the king mentioned in v. 9 is identical to the warrior king of vv. 1-7. However, the language and style together with the identity of the threatened cities are akin to a wider prophetic tradition.31 Instead of an itinerary of a foreign ruler's entire campaign the list of the cities points rather to the idealized boundaries of the Davidic kingdom. Such a tradition of the golden 'kingdom' of Israel is attested in Josh 13:1-6 and corresponds to 1 Kings 5:4 (ET 4:24) and Ezek 47:13-20. 32 It is therefore more likely that vv. 1 - 7 are written as a reference to the earlier prophetic material and only bear a symbolic meaning. But even if we admit that the author had a specific ruler in mind and that the ruler can be identified as Darius I and not as one of the Assyrian kings or Alexander (whose name was also raised in this regard), it is by no means obvious from the text that vv. 9-10 still describe the same person as vv. 1-8. The text seems to suggest the contrary. Syntactically v. 9 is not directly linked to the preceding prophecy. The 'daughter of Zion' is addressed in the 2 nd sing., which differs from the style of vv. 1 - 8 in which nobody is addressed directly. It is not entirely clear who is speaking here, whether it is a prophet (cf. Zeph 3:14-15) or YHWH (cf. Zech 2:14 [ET 10]). If it is YHWH, His rhetoric has changed. He here Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 664. Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 657. 31 Damascus (Amos 1:3-5; Isa 17:1-3); Hamath (Jer 49:23-5; Ezek 47-8); Aram (Amos 1:5; Isa 7:1-3; 9:11; 17:3); Tyre and Sidon (Isa 23:2-4; Jer 25:22; Ezek 28:20-3; Joel 4:4-8); Philistine cities (Zeph 2:7), cf. P.D. Hanson, "Zechariah 9 and the Recapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern", JBL 92 (1973) 37-59, on p. 48 n. 30-4. 32 Hanson, "Zechariah 9", 49. 30

The exilic and post-exilic messianic prophecy related to Chronicles

139

announces the coming of the king of Zion whose attributes are Ϊ?Ή2. The phrase, in such a form, does not occur elsewhere, and the direct association of p"7S and W in parallelism is confined to the last two parts of Isaiah (40-66) and to Psalms. It is found in the solemn proclamations of YHWH in Isa 45:8; 51:5, 6, 8; 56:1 and in the liturgical pronouncement of 61:10. In addition to these cases it is used by the prophet twice in figurative language when he describes the act of YHWH's salvation (cf. Isa 59:17 and 62:1), evidently referring to the solemn language of YHWH himself. In Psalms it is found in the liturgical Pss 24:5; 65:6 and 98:2, and only once in a not explicitly liturgical setting (cf. Ps 119:123) in which it, again, appears in the form of liturgical language in an individual prayer. The liturgical flavour of p l S and if both are used in close association, is thus forceful. Isa 61:10 seems to be the closest example: I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my whole being shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation he has covered me with the robe of righteousness (ПрНХ V'VÜ), as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

Isaiah refers back to 61:3, in which he announces the new salvation. Now he rejoices because YHWH has already made him experience the salvation described by the prophet in figurative language as 'clothing with the garments of salvation' (V^ 1- ''"]],), and 'covering with the robe of righteousness' (Л|ТТХ V'VÖ). In so far as joy comes from the presence of YHWH the message matches the abovementioned prophecies of Zeph 3:14-15 and Zech 2:14 (ET 10). The last oracles mentioned appear to be an adaptation of the prophecy of Isaiah for the message to the 'daughter of Zion' that YHWH has taken up the rule as king. Zech 9:9-10 is clearly in line with the tradition of the two other 'IT'S ГО oracles' while the use of p l S and W in close association is indicative of the direct drawing upon the liturgical tradition reflected in Isaiah and Pss 24:5; 65:6 and 98:2. The liturgical tone of the whole poem of Zech 9:9-10 is the natural continuation of v. 8 in which YHWH states that He will encamp at his house i.e. guard His Temple. The phrase 17Ϊ27Ί3Ί j?HS in Zech 9:9 is in the NRSV translated as "triumphant and victorious". It is questionable, however, whether this is an originally-intended rendering. As argued above, the human king mentioned in v. 9 can most likely be identified as an idealized Solomon. A particular reference to Solomon helps clarify the meaning of the term p H S as well as W U in our phrase. In Isa 9:6 (ET 7); 11:3-5 and Ps 72:1-2, 7, all of which refer to the idealized Solomonic rule, p H S means 'just' and it is very likely that the same signification applies here too. The other element - W U - is a niphal form of W which in the majority of occurrences means 'to re-

140

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

ceive/accept help', but in a few cases can also mean 'to be victorious'." Again, as an allusion to the reign of Solomon it does most likely not correspond to the latter meaning since his rule is praised exactly because he wages no wars and his kingdom enjoys peace, prosperity and international recognition. The more likely rendering of our niphal participle W U is a theological passive i.e. 'helped by YHWH', and the whole phrase ΝΊΠ УΙΪ7Ί3Ί ρΉΧ should be read as a hendiadys "he (will be) helped by YHWH due to his righteousness".34 This corresponds to what God says to Solomon: 9 Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people ("|Й2?~ПХ DQtt>V), able to discern between good and evil; for who can govern this your great people?" ... 11 God said to him, "Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches, or for the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right (UQttfo 12 1 now do according to your word. Indeed I give you a wise and discerning mind; no one like you has been before you and no one like you shall arise after you. 13 1 give you also what you have not asked, both riches and honour all your life; no other king shall compare with you (1 Kings 3:11-13).

Honour and authority over all other kings, in the case of the royal figure announced by Zechariah, is presupposed in his 'proclaiming of peace to the nations' (v. 10). The contrast is, however, created by the state of''ЗУ of the king in Zech 9:9 on the one hand, and НУ V 'riches' of Solomon in 1 Kings 3:13 on the other. First of all, in the case of Zech 9:9 the most frequent meanings of ЧУ as "oppressed", "in a needy condition", or "poor and weak" (as an opposite to "rich and powerful") can be excluded. The meaning suitable to our text can be found in Num 12:3 in which ^V/IDy is an attribute of Moses, the most revered leader of Israel: Now the man Moses was very humble (132?) [ketiv], more so than anyone else on the face of the earth.

The context of this explanatory gloss is the objection posed by Miriam and Aaron to Moses' role as a mediator for Israel. God, however, positions Moses as one who is entrusted with all His house and with whom He speaks face to face (vv. 7-8). The term 13У "humble" is therefore of theological significance; it is an expression of the 'virtue' of openness to God's word and teaching as found elsewhere in Pss 25:9 and 37:11 (cf. Prov 3:34). 33

Cf. Deut 33:29; Ps 33:16; 1 Sam 14:47, cf. HALOTII, 448. It is not necessary to amend the MT of v. 10 according to the LXX either i.e. "He will cut off ..." (έξολεθρεύσει) instead of "I will cut off ..." (ТПЭП) of MT. It is again YHWH who acts. The promise of cutting off the means of warfare naturally follows vv. 1-8. The statement of 10ba: n a r t o flW'j? ПГПЭЗ "the battle bow shall be cut off" is thus again a theological passive, referring to YHWH rather than to the king (cf Ps 46:10 [ET 9]; 76:4 [ET 3]). 34

The exilic and post-exilic messianic prophecy related to Chronicles

141

It is t h e r e f o r e r e m a r k a b l e that in Chronicles D a v i d applies the attribute Ч У to himself: With great pains С'ЗУЗ) I have provided for the house of the LORD one hundred thousand talents of gold ... (1 Chron 22:14). T h e context of this u s e of the w o r d Ч У is the k i n g ' s p r o v i d i n g for the T e m ple. In the ' c e n s u s p e r i c o p e ' (1 C h r o n 21) w e h a v e seen that D a v i d is depicted as a repentant sinner, a n d that later h e is p r e s e n t e d as a p r o p h e t in the line of M o s e s t h r o u g h the m e d i a t i o n of the p l a n of the T e m p l e . It is not u n r e a s o n a b l e to a s s u m e that in this case the s e m a n t i c v a l u e of the attribute m a t c h e s that of N u m 12:3, w h i c h is attributed to M o s e s , a n d that this ' v i r t u e ' underlies all of D a v i d ' s activities c o n c e r n i n g his p r o v i d i n g for t h e T e m p l e (i.e. the p l a n as well as the gold, silver, b r o n z e etc). T h e important o u t c o m e of the k i n g ' s h u m b l e attitude t o w a r d s Y H W H is his role of a m e diator as in the c a s e of M o s e s . If this w h o , due His w o r d as M o s e s

m e a n i n g of ЧУ/ЧЗУ is a p p l i e d to Z e c h 9:9, a ruler is described to his h u m b l e n e s s vis-ä-vis Y H W H , is o p e n to the m e d i a t i o n of to Israel. H e is an ideal leader of the nation a n d a ruler-mediator h a d b e e n in the ancient times.

5.3.2 Z e c h 12:8 8 On that day the LORD will shield the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God (DTlViO Т П rP31), like the angel of the LORD, at their head (ВТ»"? ΠΙΠ' INVüD). 9 And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication (D'JUnm |П ПЛ) on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that, when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. 11 On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 The land shall mourn, each family by itself; the family of the house of David by ( Т П Т Р Э ПП5й>'й) itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan (|Г1]_Г1,Э ППЭФ'й) by itself, and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of Levi (И^ТРЗ ПП5й>'й) by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites ('^ΏΪ^'Π ППЭФ'й) by itself, and their wives by themselves; 14 and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves. 13:1 On that day a fountain shall be opened (ППЭЗ Ч1рй ΓΡΐΤ) for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity (!T73Vl ПХОПУ).

142

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

There are reasons to assume the intrusive character of v. 8, together with v. 7, into the context of Zee 12.35 The verses mentioned break the 1st sing, of YHWH's speech of w . 2-6, 9-13:1, which form a self-consistent unit. Significant in this context is the presence of the petucha paragraph division at the end of v.6.36 Such a division marker in the manuscript would be conceivable before v. 8 or 9, which is introduced by the ΝΊΠΠ ПТП/ХЧЛЛ DVD ГРГЛ introductory phrase,37 but not before the waw conjunction of v. 7, which is syntactically linked to the preceding verses. In light of the abovementioned assumption that, apart from w . 7-8, it presents a continual speech of YHWH, it is more likely that v. 8 belongs, with v. 7 to the redactional layer. Ssebo comments that v. 8 has taken up the relations of the house of David and inhabitants of Jerusalem from 12:9-13:1 transposing it to the head of this text in its own peculiar manner.38 According to this understanding the verse is closely related to this text and is deliberately placed in the context of both the mourning for the House of David, and the 'cleansing fountain' that shall be opened for them. Verse 7, on the other hand, is of transitory character and serves as a joint-text since it is connected to both the relations between Judah and Jerusalem treated in w . 2-6, and between the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem dealt with in 12:8—13:1.39 The abrupt change from the 1st to the 3 rd sing, at vv. 6-7, and then back from the 3rd sing, to the 1st at vv. 8 - 9 defines the character of vv. 7 - 8 as a 'peser-like commentary' in their immediate context. The mourning in vv. 12-13 is reserved above all for the circles of David (David, Nathan-2 Sam 5:14 cf. 1 Chron 3:5; 14:4 as son of David and Batsheba) and Levi (Levi, Shimei-Exod 6:17; Num 3:21; 1 Chr 6:16-17 as the Gershonite Levite), and all the other families who are referred to (and are not named individually) are of lesser significance. The fact that David and Levi stand at the top of the hierarchy accords with Chronicles' approach. Zee 13:1 does mention the cleansing of sins by means of "llpft, which may refer to the "water flowing from below the threshold of the Temple" (fflDÜ 35 The addition of vv. 7 - 8 cannot be very late since they are attested in the Qumran 4QXII e manuscript containing w . 7 - 1 2 as well as in the translation of the LXX. At the same time, the petucha before v. 7 must be older than the addition of the verse, which in this case testifies to antiquity of the manuscript division. 36 K.J. A. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah. A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994), 158. 37 However, the phrase cannot be taken as a constitutive structural element of the given pericope as suggested by M. Saebo, Sacharja 9-14. Untersuchungen von Text und Form (WMANT 34; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 261, 265; cf. a review of his commentary by Kessler in JBL 90 (1971) 117-18. On the assumption of plausibility of such structure, Saebo draws conclusions about the growth of the pericope of 12:2-13:6. The only part with which I fully agree is 12:7-8, except that v. 7 would necessarily be the last addition to the pericope, p. 275. 38 Siebo, Sacharja 9-14, 273. 39 Siebo, Sacharja 9-14, 273-4.

The exilic and post-exilic messianic prophecy related to Chronicles

143

ΠΠΓΙΏ D'D) in Ezek 47:1. As the paragraph refers to the ritual cleansing from cultic impurity (ΓΠ3), it markedly linked with Jer 33:8, in which YHWH ensures the 'ritual cleansing' (ΊΠϋ) of the nation. Here again, the age in which David serves as YHWH's highest representative before the nation is positioned at a time in which the people are to be cleansed from their sins. This is in accordance with the age of the new covenant, but the restriction to Jerusalem should be noted.40 Although it is not explicitly stated that other parts of Israel will not take part in the new age, the issue will not be dealt with in this given context. If we interpret Π^Ί^ΠΓΙΊ |Π (v. 10) as hendiadys, we may read Zech 12:10-14 as the outpour of the spirit of compassion, which will result in supplication and will be followed by mourning for the one whom the people have pierced. This assumes new knowledge and recognition of past iniquity, apparently not conceived before, and gained under the influence of the poured spirit - the sign of the new age. In the case of the above-discussed text, Lamarche's proposal that Isaiah's 'servant songs' can be traced in some of the oracles found in Zechariah 9-14 seems plausible.41 Zech 12:10-13:1 may well be an allusion to Isa 53:5, although the vocabulary is different. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, crashed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his braises we are healed (Isa 53:5).

Important, in this regard, is the cultic context of Zech 12:10-13:1 if compared to Isa 53:5. Sweeney discerns another allusion to Deutero-Isaiah in Zech 12:2 which, he believes, maybe read as a reaction to Isa 51:17-23. 42

As with another post-exilic redactional text Isa 4:3-6 cf. M.A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1-4 and the Post-exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition (BZAW 171; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), 182-3. In Isa 4:2-6 a presentation of the future Israel is found which juxtaposes Zion, depicted with the images taken from the Sinai tradition and the ritual cleansing of Jerusalem (v. 4). Elsewhere Sweeney adduces some reasons in favour of the view that Isa 4:2-6 is a later insertion to Proto-Isaia and has found its way there only in the post-exilic period. The exodus tradition, which is present in v. 5 (cf. Exod 13:21-22), is constitutive for Deutero-Isaiah while it does not play any role in Proto-Isaiah. It would therefore be reasonable to suggest its secondary nature in this context. Moreover, the interest in priestly matters such as ritual purification better suits the post-exilic period than the original context of Isaiah, cf. p. 111. Although we cannot be certain about the meaning of the expression ΠΊΠ' ПЙ2 in v. 2, no explicit interest in a Davidic ruler is expressed here. In terms of rule it seems to be a presentation of the rule of YHWH ( w . 5b-6) in the future Israel, which is consonant with the approach of Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah; cf. M.A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1-39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL XVI; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 110-11. 41 P. Lamarche, Zacharie IX-XIV. Structure Littteraire et Messianisme (Paris: Gabalda, 1961), 136-7. The other parallels proposed by him are very unlikely: Isa 42:l-7//Zech 9:9-10 (11-12); Isa 49:4//Zech 11:4-14, cf. p. 140. 42 Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 685.

144

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

Zech 12:2

Isa 51:17, 2 2 - 2 3

2

17

See, I am about to make Jerusalem a cup of reeling (*72Π_Γ]0) for all the surrounding peoples; it will be against Judah also in the siege against Jerusalem.

Rouse yourself, rouse yourself! Stand up, О Jerusalem, you who have drank at the hand of the LORD the cup of his wrath, who have drank to the dregs the bowl of staggering (Л^ППЛ DID) .... 22 Thus says your Sovereign, the LORD, your God who pleads the cause of his people: See, I have taken from your hand the cup of staggering (П*72ППП DID); you shall drink no more from the bowl of my wrath. 23 And I will put it into the hand of your tormentors, who have said to you, "Bow down, that we may walk on you"; and you have made your back like the ground and like the street for them to walk on.

Again, the cultic context underlies Zech 12:2 in a different manner from that encountered in the text of Isaiah to which it alludes. Unlike Isaiah, Zechariah uses the phrase ^ J n - t p "cup of reeling" in which the term is clearly associated with the cult: it designates cultic basins or bowls used in the Temple (1 Kings 7:50; Jer 52:19) or in the threshold or door sockets of the Temple (Amos 9:1; Isa 6:4; Jer 35:4; Ezek 40:6, 7; 2 Chron 3:7; 1 Kings 14:17).43 The usual word for a 'cup' is DID, which is, on the other hand, employed in Isa 51:17, 22 within the phrase П^УППП DID (П^УППП < *?}Л) "cup of staggering". Thus, the message of Zech 12:2 may be that the nations which afflict Jerusalem will be punished (cf. Isa 51:23).44 The Temple will play an essential role in the victory over the nations which is, apart from Zech 12:2, symbolized by the stone mentioned in 12:3, most probably alluding to Zech 4:7.45 The Temple thus underlies the whole prophecy of Zech 12:1-13:1, even if in symbolic language, and v. 8, which was added to the text, cannot be entirely free of cultic signification. David, who is likened to the angel of YHWH, serves as a mediator (between YHWH and the nation), which is normally a priestly function. This, however, can be explained by the David-Moses typology in the text. Zee 12:8 reminds the reader who is acquainted with the story of Exodus of YHWH's response to

Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 685. Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 685. Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 685.

The exilic and post-exilic messianic prophecy related to Chronicles

145

Moses in informing the latter that his mission will be to act as His highest representative before Pharaoh: The LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet (Exod 7:1).

This mission is based on the elevation of Moses and Aaron to such 'levels' in Exod 4:16. David's status as the highest intermediary of God in v. 8 raises him to the position of the 'sacral ruler' over the surrounding empires of the Ancient Near East.46 Although there is no mention of a king in the given text, it is difficult to view the phrase 'House of David' in a non-royal sense.47 Verse 8 builds a hierarchy with the 'House of David' at its top. If the given phrase in vv. 7 - 8 is taken as a surrogate for the royal dynasty of David, as found in 2 Sam 7 and 1 Chron 17, we find an example for the democratization of the dynastic promise in v. 8, which is also attested in Isa 55:3. There is, however, a difference between the two concepts of democratization: while Isa 55:3 replaces the king with the nation, Zee 12:8 takes a different approach. Rather than the nation as a whole, only the inhabitants of Jerusalem are explicitly explicitly discussed in Zee 12:8. Moreover, the presence of David is assumed, although the people are attributed with the same status.

R. Mason, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 117. 47 Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 & Malachi, 118, points out that, apart from Zerubbabel who was the governor of the provincial government, there is no reason to assume that other Davidides played a political role after the exile. He thus argues that it is not appropriate to think of the 'House of David' in 12:7 as of the Davidic royal lineage, and connect it with aspirations for a renaissance of kingship. However, the 'House of David' in v.7 is placed in the future Israel for which a renaissance of Davidic kingship is well attested in the exilic and post-exilic prophetic traditions. Moreover, the 'House of David' should have the same meaning in w . 7 - 8 . If Petersen talks about the 'democratisation of the Davidic covenant' in v. 8, see Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 & Malachi, 119, it necessarily implies that the meaning of the 'House of David' is that of the 'royal dynasty of David', and the same meaning should be ascribed to v. 7. If, on the other hand, the 'house of David' in v. 8 is taken in a 'horizontal' sense, as the family of Davidic descendants current in the time of Deutero-Zechariah, it would have been unique to present them by the image found in the verse with no other attestation in the Hebrew Bible. The change of meaning of Τ Π ГРЭ in the redactional w . 7 - 8 , from the 'family of David' ( w . 9 - 1 2 ) to the 'ruler of the Davidic line,' accords with the peier-technique which applies different meanings of the same word to produce an interpretation of a text. Thus e.g. lQpHab 8:6-13 uses with the meaning "a taunt" in Hab 2:6, but "to rule" in the peser, or 4QpPs a 4:13-16 in which the meaning of as "to look for" in Ps 37:35-6 is changed to "to attempt" in the peser, cf. M.P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Intrerpretations of Biblical Books (CBQ Monograph Series 8; Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979), 245 n. 67.

146

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

5.4 Summary Jer 33 and Ezek 37:14-28 are close to Chronicles in that they share a common outlook on the future Israel. There is reason to assume, as I attempted to show, that the Chronicler knows both texts and draws from them in his portrayal of a future age of salvation. Nevertheless, there are some significant differences in their ideas. The explicit reference to the everlasting Levitical covenant in Jer 33 points to the restriction on the interference of the Palace in matters concerned with the Temple. The same can be observed in Ezek 37 in which it is evinced by the replacement of the title "J^Q for X 1 ^ ] when a future Davidic ruler is mentioned in connection with the Temple. The golden age in Chronicles is, on the other hand, presented as a monarchy with a sacral king of the Davidic line at its head. That king would be responsible for matters pertaining to both Palace and Temple, as accords with the general ANE ideology of kingship. Another issue is the unconditionally of the promise found in Jer 33 and Ezek 37 as opposed to the conditional exposition of the dynastic promise in Chronicles. The link between the new David and the Temple can be discerned in the relevant texts of Deutero-Zechariah (9:9-10 and 12:8). Both prophecies, however, at the same time allude to the Mosaic presentation in the Pentateuch, thus creating a link between Moses and the new Davidic king. This is significant since, as we have already seen, such an approach is traceable in Chronicles. The tendency to draw a line between David and Moses in order to present the king as a mediator is therefore not unique to Chronicles.

6. Conclusion

It has become accepted to discuss Chronicles as an elaboration of Samuel-Kings. This would have been natural if the genealogical material of 1 Chron 1 - 9 had been a later addition to the historical narrative, as was previously assumed. More recent scholarship, however, has presented arguments in favour of the fundamental unity of the genealogical part with the narrative section (cf. Chapter 3.1). Furthermore, the Priestly source forms an organic part of the narration, and its legal code is combined with the Deuteronomic code in the book. Such a combination of sources, together with the span of the book from the events of Genesis to those of the end of Kings, suggests that the Chronicler does not aim for an elaboration on Samuel-Kings, but rather on Genesis-Kings. This is of great significance since in such a case we witness an alternative tradition in terms of the re-shaping material according to a different theological-historical perspective. In short, what we find in the composition of Chronicles is not a new presentation of the Deuteronomistic History intended to meet the actual requirements of the author's age, but rather a response to the current process of the shaping of the Enneateuch. As I will argue, this could be considered as a plausible answer to the question of why, in the late Persian period, an author undertakes the task of writing such a massive corpus which, after all, provides a re-contextualization of the traditions found in Genesis-Kings. 1 If, with the majority of recent scholars, we take the fourth century ВСЕ, before the arrival of Alexander, as the most likely time for the composition of Chronicles we are confronted with two noteworthy historical events: the so called 'Revolt of the Satraps' and the 'Tennes Rebellion,' both of which take place in the mid fourth century ВСЕ, cf. P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 656-75. The revolt of the satraps in Asia Minor, which takes place under Artaxerxes II, is joined in 361 ВСЕ by the Egyptian king Tachos who decides to attack the Persians, cf. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 663. It is, however, not a united campaign of Egypt with Greek cities and Asia Minor satraps as may seem from the narration of Diodorus Siculus (XV.90). The consideration of other witnesses rather suggests a series of local revolts over the course of a decade; cf. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 674. Diodorus also writes that Tachos appoints Nectanebo as a commander over Egyptian soldiers, and sends him from Phoenicia to besiege the cities of Syria (XV.92.4). Syria could eventually refer to fortresses as Arad or Ber-sheba, but the archaeological survey does not show any evidence of destruction at that time. Nor is there proof that the campaign of Tachos and Nectanebo put SyroPhoenicia to fire and the sword, as Diodorus claims (cf. XV.90.3), cf. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, 665. The Tennes rebellion takes place somewhat later (351-345 ВСЕ) under the rule of Artaxerxes III. Since the publication of D. Barag, "The Effects of the Tennes Rebelion on Palestine", BASOR 183 (1966) 6-12, it is considered a significant event in which also Judah is in-

148

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

In order to show that the narration of the Enneateuch was at some stage of the tradition intended to be read as one consecutive history, Blenkinsopp composes a lucid summary of three features of the Pentateuchal narrative, which point beyond its limits2: (1) the conquest of Canaan, which is a prominent motive in Genesis remains unfinished, and when it is later completed in Josh it is re-interpreted as the fulfilment of the ancient promises (cf. Josh 21:43-45). (2) The creation account in Gen 1, composed in the priestly-scribal tradition, anticipates the establishment of worship in the seven-day structure. In the context of the Sinai revelation, the same tradition presents stipulations for the setting up and operation of the wilderness sanctuary which is established in the Promised Land after Joshua's conquest (Josh 18-19). Finally, the construction of Solomon's temple is dated 480 years after the exodus (1 Kings 6:1), and therefore fits into the chronological schema which begins with creation. (3) A major theme dominating the history of the monarchy is the threat of disaster, and especially exile, as the consequence of disobedience of the divine commandments. This theme is already anticipated in the story of Gen 2 - 3 in which Man is positioned in an idyllic environment, is given a command, disobeys it, and is consequently exiled, but not without some hope for the future. As Blenkinsopp points out, it may not be a coincidence that both the story of human origins and the Enneateuch in its entirety end in Mesopotamia "with the forward movement of history stalled for the time being".3 The Enneateuch therefore forms an intentional narrative continuum spanning from the creation to the Babylonian exile. The Chronicler, having at his disposal all the books of which Enneateuch consists, creates a different version of the history spanning within the same timeframe. An interest-

volved. His evidence has, however, more recently been contested by Widengren who argues that most of the sites which were destroyed lie, with the exception of Jericho, outside the territory of Judah; cf. G. Widengren, "The Persian Period", in J.H. Hayes/J.M. Miller (ed.), Israelite and Judaean History (London: SCM Press, 1977) 489-538, on pp. 500-503. He at the same time disagrees with the very involvement of Judah in the rebellion. This view is completely dismissed by Grainger as a "a misuse of archeological evidence, a complete misunderstanding of its nature, as well as a complete disregard for the evidence of several Persian campaigns in Palestine during the century"; cf. J.D. Grainger, Hellenistic Phoenicia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 25. None of the events mentioned could have had a deeper impact on Judah. On the other hand, we should bear in mind that repeated attempts of Persia to re-conquer Egypt, separated in 405 ВСЕ, necessarily have a very considerable impact on the region of Palestine. The Persian campaigns connected with this effort last for sixty years during which Egypt remains independent; cf. Grainger, Hellenistic Phoenicia, 22. These events undoubtedly affected the thinking of several generations of the local intellectual elite in Palestine and could also have prompted ideas about its independence. At the same time, however, it could by no means serve as an exclusive explanation for the theological effort which lies behind Chronicles. 2 Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 34-35. 3 Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 35.

Conclusion

149

ing question in this regard is that of the genre under which Chronicles could be categorized. It should be admitted, in this regard, that while a number of smaller genres can be identified in the book4, no wider consensus has been reached concerning its overall genre. S.L. McKenzie dismisses the definitions of Chronicles as midras, exegesis, propaganda or theology, as these genres are unable to account for all of its features.5 At the same time, he is probably right in viewing the book as a combination of the genres of 'rewritten Bible' and 'history writing' in explaining the book as a whole. 6 However, while not avoiding a single genre classification he also seems to accept Van Seters' definition of the Chronicler's as a "revisionist, reading into the past all the necessary structures and institutions, and ideological legitimation to support the later religious community." 7 It is possible, on this premise, to define the overall genre of Chronicles as 'revisionist historiography'. 8 From a form-critical perspective it is difficult to compare Chronicles with the texts on which it draws. Knoppers rightly notes that the genealogical introduction of 1 Chron 1 - 9 is indeed very different from the Pentateuch, and the depiction of the monarchy cannot simply be viewed as commentary on the Deuteronomic History, since several of the Chronicler's major claims contrast with those of Sam-Kings. 9 Knoppers thus acknowledges that Chronicles as a complete literary work should only be compared with the Enneateuch, for which he uses the alternative designation 'primary history'. Chronicles, he believes, is most likely as an alternative to the Enneateuch and not as a replacement for it.10 This further implies that through all the changes introduced in Chronicles the ancient reader may have interpreted the texts of Enneateuch differently.11 The points raised by Knoppers may be valid, but the question which naturally arises in this context is to what extent the Enneateuch should be interpreted differently according to the Chronicler, and why. In Chapter 2 we have seen that all the introduced changes in Chronicles are recruited to the service of a coherent ideology which re-defines the Palace-Temple relations of the previous tradition. The given relations are therefore the most likely answer to our critical question.

Cf. J. Kegler/M. Augustin, Deutsche Synopse zum Chronistischen Geschichtswerk (BEATAJ 33; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 21993), 39-51, in which the twenty small genres used in Chronicles are introduced. 5 Cf. Knoppers, Chronicles 1-9, 131. 6 S.L. McKenzie, 1-2 Chronicles (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004), 33-4. 7 Van Seters, "The Chronicler's Account", 300. 8 McKenzie, Chronicles, 34. 9 Knoppers, Chronicles 1-9, 132-3. 10 Knoppers, Chronicles 1-9, 133. 11 Knoppers, Chronicles 1-9, 133.

150

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

We may thus even view these relations as a theological-political response to the Enneateuch. The whole issue is obviously complicated by the fact that during the period discussed in this work the Palace is merely a distant memory and the Temple is the only living institution which is of importance. Yet, it would not be reasonable to argue that Chronicles is written for the Temple community and only raises issues pertaining to the Temple, whereas matters to do with the kingship are subordinate. As we have seen, unlike the attitude encountered in Ezra-Nehemiah, the Chronicler defines the Temple through the Palace, and the Palace, in turn, through the Temple. The two are inseparable, and an understanding of their mutual relations cannot be based on an emphasis on the one at the cost of the other. Two crucial points should be raised in this context, based on the study presented in the previous chapters: •

•

The kernel of Chronicles is the dynastic promise, ensuring an everlasting dynasty to David in the context of the building of the Temple. As opposed to Dtr, in which the monarchy is viewed as central only from a certain point in history onwards, the Chronicler links the dynastic promise with the origins of Israel as a nation. Through this arrangement he introduces to the Hebrew theology the Mesopotamian kingship ideology contained in the Sumerian king list in which kingship is a constant feature of society (cf. Chapter 3.2). This stands in opposition to the 'Law of the King' encountered in Deuteronomy and to the presentation of kingship in Dtr. It is, on the other hand, consistent with the theology of kingship present in Mic 5:1-5; Isa 8:23b-9:6 (ET 9:1-7) and Ps 72, all of which construct their pivots on the idealization of Solomon's rule (cf. Chapter 3.4). The reigns of David and Solomon are presented as a unit which is enclosed from the surrounding narrative. This is formally conveyed by the use of the verb UDO at the beginning and the end of their rule (cf. Chapters 2.1 and 2.3) - as well as contents: (1) unlike the period following the division, the unity of Palace and Temple is evident from the cultic activities of both David and Solomon. Both kings act as priests at the altar, and in the administrative organization of David's kingdom where no strict division is maintained between the sacral and secular spheres (cf. Chapter 3.1). This is theologically enabled through the portrayal of David according to the image of Moses, who acts as a direct mediator, and through the figures of Solomon as Joshua, the successors of Moses in the prophetic office. (2) Of all the kings only David and Solomon are mentioned as 'chosen' rulers (1 Chron 28:4, 6) who sit on the throne of YHWH (1 Chron 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron 9:8). (3) Levitical singers/prophets have

Conclusion

151

different functions during the reign of David-Solomon in which they are only mentioned in connection with cultic praise, and during the monarchy after division in which warning constitutes their principle task. (4) Through the principle of retribution the reign of DavidSolomon represent the norms according to which kings after the division are assessed. In the context of the Chronicler's view of kingship as a constant feature of society, the reign of David-Solomon primarily serves as a program for the future Israel. In Chronicles theocracy is only fully accomplished in the Davidic kingdom which rules over a united Israel, and it would therefore be difficult to accept its message as only the presentation of an ideal theocracy without hope for the restoration of the monarchy. The abovementioned re-definition of Palace-Temple relations thus points to an effort to re-evaluate the past history in order to present a vision for the future. However, the absence of eschatological language excludes the possibility of a vision of the 'last days', and the book should thus be read as a program for the renewal of the Davidic monarchy in the days of the 'achievable future'. At the same time, the new presentation of the PalaceTemple relations is a response to the 'theologico-historical' outlook of the scribes responsible for the final shape of the Enneateuch. Reinhard Kratz most recently argued for the Enneateuch as a result of the development of the Hexateuch under the influence of the Law.12 The Law, he argues, already presupposes the Hexateuch since a removal of the legal strata in Genesis-Joshua, would produce a continuous narrative line. On the other hand, in Josh-Kings the Law functions as an impulse for the composition and collection of the books.13 For the Deuteronomistic and postDeuteronomistic supplements in Josh-Kings, which survey the whole Enneateuch including Genesis, the 'first commandment' in addition to the reservations about the kingship, serve as a point of departure.14 A corresponding development can be observed in Exod 19-24; 32-34 and Deut 5 - 3 4 and at other points in the Tetrateuch which were added after the books were put together. The picture of Israel is a familiar one: Israel with its special status in history is segregated from other peoples in the Land as well as from the surrounding territories. This depiction stems from the redactional texts. One characteristic feature is the theocratic ideal.15

R.G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 155. 13 Kratz, Komposition, 154-155. 14 Kratz, Komposition, 223. 15 Kratz, Komposition, 223.

152

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

An important part of Kratz's analysis is the claim that the Tetrateuch (Gen-Num) and Dtr (Deut-Kings) are late intermediate stages on the way from the Enneateuch to the canonical bodies of the Torah and the Former prophets.16 The last two literary entities are therefore the outcome of a later development of the Enneateuch, not vice versa. My analysis accords with this conclusion. However, Kratz also goes on to argue that the final shape of Chronicles already presupposes the division of the material into the Torah and the Former prophets.17 At this particular point the evidence seems to lead to a different conclusion. The Chronicler seems well-aware of the continuation of Deuteronomy into Joshua. This is supported by the fact that relations between David and Solomon are structured according to the model of Moses-Joshua, and that the bringing of the Ark of the Covenant into the Temple is understood as a parallel to Joshua's conquest and occupation of the Land. Solomon is for the Chronicler not inferior to David, and David is, in turn, the leader who completes Moses' mission and serves as his successor in accordance with the promise of Deut 18:18. The Chronicler's elaboration thus presupposes Deut 34:9, in which Joshua is defined as the fully-legitimate successor of Moses and has equal authority: Joshua son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands on him; and the Israelites obeyed him, doing as the LORD had commanded Moses.

On the other hand, this is in opposition to the subsequent v. 10, which is added as a coda in order to demarcate the Mosaic corpus - the Pentateuch from the rest: Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face.

As Blenkinsopp observes, this text also refers back to Deut 18:18, but in this case serves to contrast the revelation to Moses with that of other prophets.18 The verse does not contain information which is entirely new (cf. Num 12:6-8), but it is significant that it immediately follows the granting of Moses' authority to Joshua whose story is narrated further on. It is important to note that v. 10 stands in opposition to the presentation of David as a prophet like Moses. This either points towards the fact Chronicles is composed before the Torah is set apart as the most sacred corpus through the assertion of the incomparability of Moses, or that the book is aimed precisely as a reaction to such a definition of the Pentateuch. Kratz, Komposition, 224. Kratz, Komposition, 224. 18 J. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon. A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 86, 89-90. 17

Conclusion

153

Sir 46:1 clearly indicates that even after the Pentateuch is completed as the Mosaic corpus, Joshua is in the tradition of διάδοχος Μωυσή εν προφητείαις "successor of Moses in the prophetic office".19 This approach, which is consistent with that of the Chronicler who portrays the DavidSolomon succession according to the Moses-Joshua pattern, is also very close to Mai 3:22-24 (ET 4:4-6) - the text designed to conclude the prophetic canon, and perhaps even the Torah and the Prophets.20 The warning to observe the Torah of Moses is complemented therein by the prophet Elijah who, as a promised prophet like Moses (Deut 18:18), "will turn the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents" (v. 24). Blenkinsopp, referring to Sir 48:10 and Isa 49:5-6, shows that significance of Mai 3:22-24 (ET 4:4-6) resides in the final reintegration of Israel,21 which is consistent with the ideology of Chronicles as the concept of a united Israel lies at the very core of the book. In this regard, both Sir 46:1 and Mai 3:22-24 (ET 4:4-6) would make the composition of Chronicles, after the canon of Pentateuch was definitely closed by Deut 34:10, more comprehensible. However, we may ask whether the strict delimitation of the Pentateuch as the most sacred of books would have allowed the Chronicler to reduce it in the way he did i.e. to the genealogical record with the occasional glosses. There is not even a special gloss which would somehow enclose Moses from the rest - it is simply not an issue in Chronicles. This information suggests that the time of the Chronicler is the period in which the Enneateuch is shaped, still before the individual literary entities of the Torah and the Former Prophets are strictly defined and posed against each other. Consequently, Sir 46:1 and Mai 3:22-24 (ET 4:4-6) point rather to a later development connected with the closure of the prophetic canon in which the conflict of Torah and Prophets needs to be resolved. It is therefore reasonable to view Chronicles as a part of the final redactional process of the Enneateuch, leading to the definitive establishment of the individual canonical entities of the Torah and the Prophets. The already adduced result of Kratz's conclusion that the Law is the decisive means in shaping the literary context of the Enneateuch should not be detached from the role of Ezra in early Judaism. Our discussion of this 19 Although the MS. В of the Hebrew text of Ben Sira from the Cairo Geniza reads where the Greek text contains διάδοχος i.e. "assistant of Moses in the prophetic office" instead of "successor ...". The Greek διάδοχος is probably the translation of the Hebrew ΓΠΪ£>'Ώ as e.g. 2 Chron 28:7 suggests, and according to Segal it could be the original reading; cf. M.H. Segal, Sefer Ben Sira ha-shalem (Jerusalem: Mosad Byalik, 1953), 318; Horbury, "Monarchy", 110 n.65. 20 Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, 94. 21 Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, 121-2.

154

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

particular issue can therefore begin with a short presentation of Veijola's compelling suggestion that there could be a link between Ezra and the 'nomistic redactors' (DtrN) who continue the work of Deuteronomic scribes. Veijola's considerations unfold from the observation that the issue of intermarriage, which is a critical religious and judicial problem at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, is central to the composition of the two books as well as to the layers of DtrN.22 The importance of this issue stems from the recognition that a simple dependence of the two literary entities cannot be maintained.23 The difference between DtrN and Ezra-Nehemiah consists of the understanding of intermarriage as the giving away of Israelite daughters on the one hand, and the acceptance of non-Israelite women into the community on the other (DtrN).24 It further includes the prohibition of taking foreign wives and begetting children with them (Ezra-Nehemiah). 25 However, the concordant vocabulary and the same theological rationale for the prohibition of mixed marriages support the possibility of a close relation between the two.26 More precisely, the arguments of DtrN in this matter are presupposed in Ezra-Nehemiah. According to Veijola, DtrN and Ezra-Nehemiah historically represent two successive reactions to circumstances faced by the first generation of the Second Temple period.27 It is the scribal character of the text which serves as a point of connection between the Deuteronomic school and Ezra. The genealogical record of Ezra 7:1 even traces him back as a descendant of Hilkiah, the priest who plays a central role in the discovery of the Torah and the subsequent cultic reform of Josiah. At 7:6 he is designated as Л1У0 ΓΠΊΓΟ ΤΠΏ "ISO "a scribe skilled in the Law of Moses", and v. 10 states that he had set his heart to study (ЦГП) the Law of YHWH, to practice it (П1УУ), and to teach its statutes and ordinances in Israel. The wording of the verse is a combination of scribal and Deuteronomistic expressions.28 Ezra's mission in Jerusalem is here defined by a threefold function: exegetical, pedagogical, and juridical. Veijola, however, argues that the Deuteronomistic tradition already contains elements which anticipate the threefold scribal function of Ezra. The first one - exegetical - is explained by the example of Jer 8:8:

T. Veijola, "Deuteronomistic Roots of Judaism", in C. Cohen/A. Hurvitz/S. Paul (ed.), Sefer Moshe. The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004) 459-478, on p. 462. 23 Veijola, "Deuteronomistic Roots", 463. 24 Deut 7:3; Josh 23:12; Judg 3:6 25 Ezra 9:2; 10:2-3 , 10-11, 14, 17, 19, 44; Neh 13:23-4. 26 Veijola, "Deuteronomistic Roots", 463. 27 Veijola, "Deuteronomistic Roots", 464. 28 Veijola, "Deuteronomistic Roots", 465.

Conclusion

155

8 How can you say, "We are wise (ЧЗПЗХ Π'ΏΟΠ), and the law of the LORD (miT ГГТ1П) is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes (ΠΉ30 U2?) has made it into a lie?

Jeremiah here accuses the scribes of forging the Torah with their pens, which is understandable if we consider that they are the only professional group which would be able to produce such a literary corpus as UrDeuteronomy, and that Deuteronomy is an innovative reformulation of the older laws contained in the Covenant Code.29 The book is thus from the very beginning connected to the circle of learned scribes who bequeath (DtrN) their concept of work to the later legal experts.30 These redactors are responsible for the latest strata of Dtr in which elements of halakhic and haggadic exegesis are found.31 The second, pedagogical function is well encountered in Deuteronomy by its sapiential and didactic tendencies, as noted by Weinfeld.32 Importantly, these elements are mostly found in the secondary layers of the book.33 The third, judicial activity is indicated in numerous places. To give at least one example, right at the beginning of Deuteronomy the text of 1:9-18 (a product of DtrN redactors) describes the appointment of judges by Moses at Horeb. These judges are defined as wise (ПЭП), discerning (nif f D ) , and reputable (УТ) and serve as heads of the community (vv. 13, 15) as well as judges ( w . 16-17). The distinctive feature of the DtrN redactors is their high esteem forjudges, which is a natural consequence of the fact that they are appointed to the office by Moses himself. The other feature is a critical stance towards kingship. Both attitudes are, according to Veijola, best explained by the assumption that the DtrN redactors serve as practising jurists before the fall of the kingdom whereas following the disappearance of the royal administration they take over the local judicial authority. Activity of the DtrN redactors thus displays the scribal character which presents them as interpreters, teachers of the law and practising lawyers.34 A close affiliation of Ezra with these redactors makes it unlikely that they operate in Palestine. They should rather be situated in the Babylonian Diaspora as the intellectual elite from which Ezra the scribe is recruited.35

Veijola, "Deuteronomistic Roots", 468. Veijola, "Deuteronomistic Roots", 469. Veijola, "Deuteronomistic Roots", 469-72. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 244-306. Veijola, "Deuteronomistic Roots", 472-3. Veijola, "Deuteronomistic Roots", 475. Veijola, "Deuteronomistic Roots", 476.

156

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

Veijola in his analysis naturally assumes plausibility of his own identification of DtrN strata which has, however, not been universally accepted.36 On the other hand, the very fact that the 'threefold function' of Ezra is derived from Deuteronomy already suggests his close connection to the theological school anchored in the latter. This, in turn, has interesting consequences in light of the continuity of the Deuteronomic school down to the fifth century ВСЕ. We have no direct evidence that Ezra was one of Deuteronomistic redactors editing biblical texts, but his close affiliation to those scribes is very likely. Furthermore, the analysis of Kratz makes sufficiently clear that the ideology of Ezra-Nehemiah - the image of Israel as an ideal theocracy with a special role in history, segregated from other nations of the Land as well as from those of the surrounding territories - is consistent with that of the final post-Deuteronomistic redaction of the Enneateuch. This suggests that Ezra not only represents a connection with the Deuteronomic school before him, but also that his theological approach is carried further by influential scribes responsible for the final elaboration of the massive historical corpus of Genesis-Kings. As a symbol of the restoration of the Mosaic Law, Ezra also is a symbol of the renaissance of the Jewish experience in Palestine in general.37 Thus, it is not surprising that he viewed as 'Moses redivivus' in the rabbinic tradition.38 The testimony of Hecataeus of Abdera from about 300 ВСЕ, preserved in the text of Diodorus Siculus (XL.3.1-7), is important in this regard. Hecataeus presents Moses as the founder of the Temple, priesthood, and State and these are precisely the roles attributed to David by the Chronicler.39 The given inconsistency is in the case of the first two issues also 36

A.F. Campbell, Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 1—2 Kings 10) (CBQM 17; Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1986), 12, provides a well taken summary of problems with Veijola's method. His criticism is moving in three directions: (1) a literary critical eagerness i.e. readiness to draw conclusions regarding the redactional activity wherever there is ground for its possibility, but also where there is no evidence for its necessity; (2) a tendency to use the conclusions reached in one text as evidence in further analysis of other texts; (3) a failure to maintain control over the relative degrees of probability involved in the amassing of overlapping and independent conclusions. The overall picture painted by such analysis is not founded on a secure basis, but on a series of mutually-dependent conclusions. For evaluation of Veijola's analysis of 1 Sam 8-12, see S.L. McKenzie, "The Trouble with Kingship", in A. de Pury/T. Römer/Jean-Daniel Macchi (ed.), Israel Constructs its History. Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (JSOTSup 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 286-314. 37 D. Mendels, "Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish 'patrios politeia' of the Persian Period (Diodorus Siculus XL, 3)", ZAW95 (1983) 96-110, on p. 100. 38 Cf. Sukkah 20a; Sanhedrin 21b; Sotah 48b; Baba Qama 82a; Ketuboth 3a; Berakoth 27b, 20b-22b; Megilah 15a. 31b; in the apocrypha IV Ezra 14:21-2, cf. Mendels, "Hecataeus of Abdera", 100 n. 26. 39 An important question regarding Hecataeus concerns his sources of information, which are not without problems. He deals with Moses and the priests as the only legitimate representa-

Conclusion

157

encountered in the biblical record of Ezra-Nehemiah: Ezra 6:18 (Moses) against Ezra 3:10; 8:20; Neh 12:24, 45 (David). We thus witness two different traditions, both of which are a product of the fourth century ВСЕ Judaism, even if in the case of Hecataeus one should already speak of the Hellenistic period (under Ptolemy I). Hecataeus' statement, which is in sharp opposition to the known history of Israel, is that the Jews never had a king (3.5). This is particularly interesting in the context of this study as in the syntax of the Greek text his statement is directly connected with two issues: (1) priests serve as judges in all major disputes and are entrusted with the guardianship of the laws and customs, and (2) the high priest acts as the messenger of God's commandments for the people. Monarchy is here entirely disregarded in favour of the theocracy represented by priests. Mendels refers to the parallels between Hecataeus' description and Ezra-Nehemiah. 40 The role of the Davidic kingdom is in this case played down as is best discernible in the historical reminiscence of Neh 9 or in the negative attitude towards Solomon in Neh 13:6, in which the king is only presented as a bad Israelite who sins with foreign women.41 This is, of course, very different from Chronicles which depicts Solomon as flawless and in which intermarriage is by no means an issue. A negative attitude towards kingship is the feature of the final Deuteronomistic redaction of the Enneateuch, and may be seen as one of the marks of Ezra-Nehemiah. In any case, the latter builds on the prophecy of Deutero-Isaiah of the Persian monarch as an agent of YHWH, and accordingly presents the Persian rule as a tool in the hands of YHWH.42 Ezra himself acknowledges this in the blessing (Ezra 7:27-28) and prayer (9:6—15).43 We are therefore confronted with an ideology which does not recognize the vision of a future Israel in the form of the Davidic monarchy. YHWH alone

tives of the Jews in a history which is closer to the priestly ideology than to anything else. On the other hand, he is unaware of the basic fact that priesthood and High Priesthood are hereditary, as he states that authority over the people is conferred upon "the priest who is regarded superior to his colleagues in wisdom and virtue" (3.5); cf. B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora (Hellenistic Culture and Society 21; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 33-34. Bar-Kochva explains that he may well have misinterpreted complimentary references to the quality of priests together with the information regarding the process of formal ratification which must have existed, as the position of High Priest is at times conferred upon the brother of a legal heir, cf. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 34, cf. Ant 11.298; 12.157, 237—8; 2 Масс 4:7; cf. M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism I (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974), 31. 40 Mendels, "Hecataeus of Abdera", 96-110. 41 Mendels, "Hecataeus of Abdera", 105 n. 56. 42 Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, 87-8. 43 Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, 88.

158

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

is the ruler and controls foreign monarchs who are, accordingly, subjected to His authority. The ideology of YHWH as the exclusive king can also be traced in the redactional shaping of the Psalter. Book IV of the Psalter, in line with the theology of Deutero-Isaiah, transfers the royal titles originally given to David to the nation represented by the figures of pre-monarchic Israel. The priestly source, which devotes very little attention to the issue of kingship (cf. Gen 17:6, 16), also constructs its theology through the tracing of God's involvement in the history of pre-monarchic Israel. Although an explicit reference to God's kingship cannot be found in P, its concept of God's glory (TDD) present in the sanctuary is closely connected with this theology.44 We can therefore observe a disagreement with the ideology of Chronicles. There, in the ideal period which serves as a program for the future, David and Solomon are kings sitting on the throne of YHWH, and the expected ruler is therefore seen as a necessary complement to YHWH's rule. Moreover, Moses-David represents the succession and continuity of the cultic institutions in Israel: the Tabernacle - the Temple i.e. as the Law represented in Chronicles by the Ark comes through Moses, the personal organization of the Temple is established by David. The two are complementary since the Ark containing the Law is a heart of the Temple, and David's mission in such an understanding completes the mission of Moses (cf. Chapter 3.4). The given continuity is also stressed in the description of the Temple in Chronicles (cf. 2 Chron 3:3-4:22), which is a deliberate modification of the Vorlage of 1 Kings 6 - 7 in that it uses elements from the Ρ description of the Tabernacle (cf. Exod 25-30). This approach does not entirely counter the ideology of those post-exilic circles which do not recognize the Davidic monarchy as everlasting. It does, however, complement their theology. The Chronicler recognizes the theologoumenon of Deutero-Isaiah about YHWH's designing of history through foreign rulers who serve as instruments in His hands, but does not view it as conflicting with the Davidic kingship. The desired Davidic king will sit on the throne of YHWH, as do David and Solomon. In addition, the Chronicler sets the dynastic promise of the everlasting Davidic kingdom as an Archimedean point to his presentation of history, and, at the same time, places it adjacent to the promise to the patriarchs. Through this arrangement he shows the necessary continuity of both periods which are not concluded before the pronouncement of the dynastic promise to David. This promise is, in turn, presented as everlasting only in connection with the Temple. In

Cf. A. Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1989), 153.

Conclusion

159

conclusion, the time of Moses, according to Chronicles, cannot be considered as the final normative stage in the history of Israel. This, I hope, will shed a different light the dissimilarities between Chronicles and the final shaping of the Enneateuch. The Deuteronomistic and post-Deuteronomistic redactions which give the whole corpus of the Enneateuch its final shape are focused on the Law, and, in political terms, accept the Persian rulers as tools of YHWH who is the sole suzerain. The Sinai revelation is for those redactors a pivotal point through which the failure of the monarchy could be explained. Human kingship over Israel is, in their view, in conflict with the suzerainty of YHWH, but through the keeping of the Law it is eventually, although unwillingly, accepted (cf. 1 Sam 8:6-22; 12). The exilic and post-exilic prophetic texts which express the hope for continuation of the Davidic dynasty present a different view. As in the case of Chronicles, they rather complement than counter the ideology of those who regard YHWH as the exclusive monarch. However, they do so by carefully defining the limits in the civic and sacred spheres. The two texts - Jer 33 and Ezek 37:14-28 - which present their vision within the same framework as Chronicles i.e. Dynasty - Temple - Torah - Land - 'All Israel', thus sharing a common outlook on the future Israel, differ explicitly from Chronicles in this regard. It has been argued that the Chronicler is familiar with Ezek 37:14-28 and probably makes use of it in his presentation of an ideal future. Moreover, as with Jer 33:14-26, the Chronicler's message for the future is presented as a response to the prophecy of Jer 29:10. At the same time, however, the Chronicler has his own specific understanding of Palace-Temple relations. His presentation of David as a prophet, and one who is most similar to Moses, allows the Chronicler to present the future king of Israel as a mediator who sits on the throne of YHWH. This makes the strict division between civic and sacred spheres somewhat unnecessary. We have seen that the two prophetic texts in Deutero-Zechariah - Zech 9:9-10 and 12:8 - allude to the Mosaic presentation in the Pentateuch which creates a link between Moses and the new Davidic king. Although we do not have evidence for the precise dating of these texts, the late Persian period is probably the most plausible option. It appears, therefore, that Chronicles was not alone in drawing a link between Moses and David, and its presentation is based on a tradition which most probably already existed during its composition. This is not surprising as there is evidence of Jeremiah and Ezekiel who present themselves as prophets in the Mosaic line, and, in a similar manner, Ezra is also portrayed as a new Moses (as I mentioned before). With the increasingly-significant role of the Law in Judaism, Moses necessarily becomes a key figure and an immediate point of reference, and it would thus be natural for the prophetic circles which

160

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

recognize David as their spiritual ancestor to also make this connection. This does not necessarily suggest their authorship in all the cases in which David is somehow linked to Moses. It may imply, however, that the idea originates in these circles and is subsequently also adopted by others who still view the dynastic promise as valid. To sum up these points, the Chronicler's belief in the continuous validity of the dynastic promise leads to his writing of the history of Israel according to his own scenario. Before him the task of presenting the hope for renewal of the Davidic kingship was mostly expressed by the redactional additions to the older prophecies, or by small redactional intrusions in them. In the case of Chronicles, on the other hand, we are confronted with a large independent corpus which corresponds to the Enneateuch in its scope. The last stages of the latter are formed by P, and, above all, by the post-Deuteronomistic redaction, both of which are not sympathetic to the vision of the future Israel as a monarchy under the leadership of a Davidic king. While it is quite clear that Ρ is already completed by the time of the Chronicler, the work of the post-Deuteronomistic redactors probably still continues. The final delimitation of the corpus of the Torah by Deut 34:10, after the time in which Chronicles is written, testifies to this. The division of the Torah as the Mosaic canon from the Former Prophets testifies to the view of the period of the Mosaic revelation as the final normative stage within the history of Israel. The outcome of this ideology could very well be, as remarked by Hecataeus, that Moses is viewed as the founder of the Temple, priesthood and state. Such an understanding leaves no space for a future restoration of the Davidic monarchy. The composition of an alternative history in a period in which such ideology is predominant in Judah is understandable. On the other hand, the scribe(s) who undertakes the task of writing that history down disagrees with the redactors of the Enneateuch only in his belief in the future validity of the covenant with David. The scribe's respect for the Law and understanding of YHWH as the suzerain who governs foreign monarchs is in full agreement with accepted theological beliefs of post-exilic Judaism. For that scribe, however, both Palace and Temple are places from which YHWH wishes to rule. The Davidic king of the united Israel sits on the throne of YHWH in the Palace, while the presence of YHWH in the Temple is articulated through the ideology of ΓΠΓΡ ТПЭ which is connected with the Ark of Covenant, the symbol of the Law. David is presented as the second Moses and the same applies to Solomon who is modelled as the new Joshua (the successor of Moses according to the Hexateuch). On this basis the Chronicler redefines Palace-Temple relations. King David's definition as a second Moses allows the Chronicler to present David as a mediator and

Conclusion

161

thus also as a king whose priestly function follows naturally from his political status. This view constitutes a clear connection with the wider ANE ideology of kingship wherein the spheres of Palace and Temple are not strictly segregated. All this would, of course, be senseless if the Chronicler would not indeed expect the restoration of the Davidic monarchy at some point. Future Davidic kings of a united Israel should, accordingly, be considered as mediators in the line of Moses, David and Solomon. This approach is radically different from that of Ezek 43:7-8 in which YHWH states that the proximity of the Temple to the Palace causes defilement of His Holy name. One of the important issues included in the presentation of Chronicles against the Enneateuch is the vision of a united Israel in opposition to the segregational politics of Ezra andNehemiah. Their mission is confined to the population of Judah in the case of Nehemiah, but only to the community of the returnees in the case of Ezra.45 A closer examination of this in the light of the conclusions presented above is an issue which spans beyond the present research, and will hopefully be looked into in future studies in the field.

Cf. H. Tadmor, "Judah", in D.M. Lewis et al. (ed.), The Cambridge Ancient History VI. The Fourth Century B.C. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2 1994) 261-291, on p. 283.

Selected Bibliography

Ackroyd, P.R., "The Chronicler as Exegete", JSOT 1/2 (1977) 2-32. , "Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah: The Concept of Unity", in O. Kaiser (ed.), Lebendige Forschung im Alten Testament (ZAW 100 Supplement; Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1988) 189-201. Albright, W.F., "The Judicial Reform of Jehoshaphat", in S. Lieberman (ed.), Alexander Marx: Jubilee volume on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950) 61-82. Allen, L.C., Ezekiel 20-48 (WBC 29; Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1990). Auld, A.G., Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible's Kings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994). Barag, D., "The Effects of the Tennes Rebelion on Palestine", BASOR 183 (1966) 6-12. Bar-Kochva, В., Pseudo-Hecataeus, On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora (Hellenistic Culture and Society 21; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). Barthelemy, D., Critique textuelle de lAncien Testament. Vol 1. (OBO 50/1; Friebourg: Editions Universitaires, 1982). Becker, J., 1 Chronik {NEB 18; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1986). ,Esra, Nehemiah (NEB 25; Würtzburg: Echter Verlag, 1990). Beuken, W.A.M., Haggai—Sacharja 1—8. Studien zur Uberlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967). , "Isa. 55, 3-5: the Reinterpretation of David", Bijdragen XXXV (1974) 49-64. Blenkinsopp, J., Prophecy and Canon. A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977). , A History of Prophecy in Israel: From the Settlement in the Land to the Hellenistic period (London: SPCK, 1984). , Ezra - Nehemiah (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1989). , Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995). , The Pentateuch An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1992). Block, D.I., The Book of Ezekiel. Chapters 25-48 (Grand Rapids, Ml/Cambridge UK: Eerdmans, 1998)304-6. Braun, R., "Solomonic apologetic in Chronicles", JBL 92 (1973) 502-14. , 1 Chronicles (WBC 14; Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1986). Briant, P., From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002). Bright, J., Jeremiah (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965). Budde, К., Die Bücher Samuel (Tübingen/Leibzig: J.C.B. Mohr, 1902) 315-17. Butler, T.C., "A Forgotten Passage from a Forgotten Era (1 Chr. XVI 8-36)", VT 28 (1978) 142-50. Burney, С.F., The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 21970). Campbell, A.F., Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 1—2 Kings 10) (CBQM 17; Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1986). , 1 Samuel (FOTL 7; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003). Caquot, Α., "Les 'Graces de David'. A propos d'Isa'ie 55/3b", Semitica 15 (1965) 45-59.

Selected Bibliography

163

, "Peut-on-parler de messianisme dans l'oeuvre du Chroniste?", RTP 3/16 (1966) 110-20.

Carter, C.E., The Emergence ofYehud in the Persian Period (JSOTSup 294; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). Cathcart, K.J., "Notes on Micah 5,4-5", Bib 49 (1968) 511-14. , "Micah 5,4-5 and Semitic Incantations", Bib 59 (1978) 38-48. Christensen, D.L, Deuteronomy 1:1—21:9, revised (WBC 6A; Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001). Clements R.E., Old Testament Prophecy. From Oracles to Canon (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1996). Clines, D.J.A., Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester (NCB; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott Publ., 1984). Cody, Α., A History of the Old Testament Priesthood (AnBib 35; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969). Coggins, R.J,,Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). Cross, F.M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973). , "A Reconstruction of the Judean Reconstruction", JBL 94 (1975) 4-18. , From Epic to Canon. History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore/London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1998). Curtis, E.L./Madsen, Α. Α., The Book of Chronicles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910). Day, J., Psalms (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990). De Vries, S.J., Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Time and History in the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1975). , I and II Chronicles (FOTL; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989). De Wette, W.M.L., Kritischer Versuch über die Glaubwürdigkeit der Bücher der Chronik mit Hinsicht auf die Geschichte der Mosaischen Bücher und Gesetzgebung: Ein Nachtrag zu den Vaterschen Untersuchungen über den Pentateuch (Halle: Schimmelpfennig & Compagnie, 1806). Dietrich, W., Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972). Dillard, R.B., 2 Chronicles (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987). Dörfuss, Ε.Μ., Mose in den Chronikbüchern: Garant theokratischer Zukunfterwartung (BZAW 219; Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1994). Driver, S.R., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary to Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895). Eichhorn, J.G., Einleitung ins Alte Testament II (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1781). Eissfeldt, O., "The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55:1-5", in B.W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (ed.), Israel's Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (London: SCM, 1962) 196-207. Engneil, I., Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1943). Eph'al, I., "Syria-Palestine Under Achaemenid Rule", in The Cambridge Ancient History IV. Persia, Greece and the Western Meditterranean c. 525 to 479 B.C. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2 1988) 139-64. Fishbane, M., Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). Flint, P.W., The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill, 1997). Frankfort, H., Kingship and the Gods. A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 41962). Garcia Martinez F./Tigchelaar, E.J.C., Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1997-1998). Goldstein, J.Α., 1 Maccabees: a new translation, with introduction and commentary (AB 41; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976).

164

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

Gosse, В., "Le quatrieme livre du Psautier, Psaumes 90-106 comme reponse a l'echec de la royaute davidique", BZNF 46 (2002) 239-52. , "Les mentions de Mo'ise en Isa'ie 63,7-64,11 et Psaumes 90-106, et relations entre le livre d'Isa'ie, le Psautier et les Cantiques", Trans 24 (2002) 23-39. Grainger, J.D., Hellenistic Phoenicia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991). Gunneweg, A.J.H., "Zur Interpretation der Bücher Esra-Nehemiah", in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Vienna 1980: International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament (SVT 32; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 146-61. Hallo, W., "Texts, Statues and the Cult of the Divine King", in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Jerusalem 1986 (SVT 40; Leiden/New York/Kobenhavn/Köln: Brill, 1988) 55-66. Halpern, В., The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). Hanson, J.D., "The Song of Heshbon and David's Nil", HTR 61 (1968) 297-320. , "Zechariah 9 and the Recapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern", JBL 92 (1973) 37-59. Herbert E.D., "4QSama and Its Relationship to the LXX: An Exploration in Stemmatological Analysis", in B.A. Taylor (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (SBLSCS 45; Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1997). Hill, A.E., "Patchwork Poetry or Reasoned Verse? Connective Structure in 1 Chronicles XVI", VT 33 (1983) 97-101. Hillers, D.R., Micah. A Commentary on the book of the Prophet Micah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). Holladay, W.L., Jeremiah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah (2 vol.; Philadelphia, MI: Fortress Press, 1986-1989). Hooke, S.H., (ed.), Myth and Ritual. Essays on the Myth and Ritual of Hebrews in Relation to the Culture Pattern of the Ancient East (London/New York: Oxford University Press, 1933). , (ed.), The Labyrinth. Further Studies in the Relation Between Myth and Ritual in the Ancient World (London/New York: Macmillan Company, 1935). Horbury, W./Noy, D., Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Horbury, W., Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM Press, 1998). , "Monarchy and Messianism in the Greek Pentateuch", in M.A. Knibb (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism (BETL 195; Leuven, 2006) 79—128. Horgan, M. P., Pesharim: Qumran Intrerpretations of Biblical Books (CBQ Monograph Series 8; Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979). Hossfeld, F. L./Zenger, Ε., Psalms 2. A commentary on Psalms 51-100 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005). Hurowitz, V.A., I Have Built You an Exalted House. Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). Jackson, B.S., "Law in the Ninth Century: Jehoshaphat's 'Judicial Reform'" in H.G.M. Williamson (ed.), Understanding the History of Ancient Israel (Proceedings of British Academy 143; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 369-97. Japhet, S., "The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew", VT 18 (1968) 330-71. , "Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles", JBL 98 (1979) 205-18. , The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und den Antiken Judentums; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989). ,I&II Chronicles (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1993). Johnson, A.R., Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1955). Johnson, M.D., The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies. (SNTSMS 8., Cambridge: University Press, 1969).

Selected Bibliography

165

Kalimi, I., The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005). Kartveit, Μ., Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in 1 Chronik 1—9 (ConBOT 28; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wikseil, 1989). Kegler, J./Augustin, M., Deutsche Synapse zum Chronistischen Geschichtswerk (BEATAJ 33; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 21993). Kelly, B.E., Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles (JSOTSup 211; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Keown G.L., et al., Jeremiah 26-52 (WBC 27; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1995). Knierim, R., 'Exodus 18 und die Neuordnung der mosaischen Gerichtsbarkeit', ZAW 1Ъ (1961) 146-71. Klein, R.W., 1 Chronicles. A Commentary (Heremeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006). Knoppers, G.N., "Jehoshaphat's Judiciary and 'the Scroll of YHWH's Torah", JBL 113 (1994) 59-80. , "Images of David in Early Judaism: David as Repentant Sinner in Chronicles", Bib 76 (1995) 449-70. , Review of A.G. Auld, Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible's Kings. Ashland Theological Journal 27 (1995) 118-21. , "Deuteronomist and Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship", ZAW 108 (1996) 329-46. , "Intermariage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of Judah", JBL 120 (2001) 15-36. , "The Davidic Genealogy: Some Contextual Considerations from the Ancient Mediterranean World", Trans 22 (2001) 35-50. , "Greek historiography and the Chronicler's history: a reexamination", JBL 122 (2003) 627-50. , I Chronicles. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York; London: Doubleday, 2004). Koch, K., "Der Psalter und Seine Redaktionsgeschichte", in K. Seybold/E. Zenger (ed.), Neue Wege der Psalmen Forschung: für Walter Beyerlin (Herders biblische Studien 1; Freiburg: Herder, 1994) 243-77. Kraeling, E.G., The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century В. С. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953). Kratz, R.G., Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). Kugel, J.L., "David the Prophet", in J.L. Kugel (ed.), Poetry and Prophecy. The Beginnings of a Literary Tradition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990) 45-55. Lamarche, P., Zacharie IX-XIV. Structure Littteraire et Messianisme (Paris: Gabalda, 1961). Lambert, W.G., "A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis", JTS 16 (1965) 287-300. Larkin, K.J. Α., The Eschatology of Second Zechariah. A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994). Lemke, W.E., "The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler's History", HTR 58 (1965) 349-63. Levenson, J.D., Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985). Lohfink, N., "Die Deuteronomische Darstellung der Ubergangs des Führung Israels von Moses auf Josua", Scholastik 37 (1962) 32-4. , "Distribution of the Functions of Power: The Laws Concerning Public Offices in Deuteronomy 16:18-18:22", in D.L. Christensen (ed.), A Song of Power and the Power of Song. Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993) 337-52. Lohfink, N./Zenger, Ε., Der Gott Israels und die Völker: Untersuchungen zum Jesajabuch und zu den Psalmen (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 154; Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994). Lundbom, J.R., Jeremiah 21-36 (AB 21B; New York: Doubleday, 2004).

166

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

Machinist, P., "The Transfer of Kingship: A Divine Turning", in A.B. Beck et al. (ed.), Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995) 105-20. Macholz, G.Ch., "Zur Geschichte der Justizorganisation in Juda", ZAW84 (1972) 314^10. Martinez, F.G./Tigchelaar, E.J.C. (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vol.; Leiden/New York/Köln: Eerdmans, 1997-8). Mason, R., Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). Mayer, W.R., "Ein Mythos von der Erschaffung des Menschen und des Königs", Or 56 (1987) 55-68. McBride, S.D., "Polity of the Covenant People: The Book of Deuteronomy", Int 41 (1987) 229-44. McCarter, P.K., 2 Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984). McCarthy, D.J., "An Installation Genre?", JBL 90 (1971) 31-41. McKane, W., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986-1996). McKenzie, S.L., The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomic History (HSM 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). , "The Chronicler as Redactor", in M.P. Graham/S.L. McKenzie (ed.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture (JSOTSup 263; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). , "The Trouble with Kingship", in A. de Pury/T. Römer/Jean-Daniel Macchi (ed.), Israel Constructs its History. Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (JSOTSup 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000). , 1-2 Chronicles (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004). Mendels, D., "Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish 'patrios politeia' of the Persian Period (Diodorus Siculus XL, 3)", ZAW95 (1983) 96-110. Meshorer, Y., Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period (Tel Aviv: Am Hassefer, 1967) 35-40. Meyers, C.L./Meyers, E.M., Haggai, Zechariah 1—8. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B; Garden City, NY: Doubleday 1984). Miller, J. M./Hayes, J.H., A History of Ancient Israel andjudah (London: SCM Press, 1986). Mosis, R., Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (Freiburg: Herder, 1973). Mowinckel, S., He That Cometh (Oxford: Blackwell, [Norwegian original 1951]). Muntingh, L. M., "The Conception of Ancient Syro-Palestinian Kingship in the Light of Contemporary Royal Archives with Special Reference to the Recent Discoveries at Tell Mardikh (Ebla) in Syria", BMECCJ 1(1984) 1-10. Nicholson, E.W., Jeremiah 26-52 (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975). , "'Do not dare to set a foreigner over you': the king in Deuteronomy and 'the great king'", ZAWl 18 (2006) 46-61. Noth, M., Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1957). Nowack, W R i c h t e r , Ruth, and Bücher Samuelis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1902). Oeming, M., Das wahre Israel: Die 'genealogische Vorhalle' 1 Chronik 1-9 (BWANT 128; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1990). Otto, E., "The Pentateuch in Synchronical and Diachronical Perspectives", in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomischen Geschichtswerk, E. Otto/R. Achenbach (ed.), (FRLANT 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004) 28-9. Peltonen, K., "Function, Explanation, and Literary Phenomena: Aspects of Source Criticism as Theory and Method in the History of Chronicles Research.", in M. P. Graham/S. L. McKenzie (ed.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 18-69.

Selected Bibliography

167

Perlitt, L., "Der Staatsgedanke im Deuteronomium", in S.E. Balentine/J. Barton (ed.), Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) 182-98. Petersen, D. L., Haggai & Zechariah 1-8 (London: SCM Press, 1984). , Zechariah 9-14 & Malachi (London: SCM Press, 1995). Pietersma, Α., "Ra 2110 (P. Bodmer XXIV) and the Text of the Greek Psalter", in D. Fraenkel et al. (ed.), Studien zur Septuaginta: Robert Hanhart zu ehren aus Anlass seines 65. Geburstages (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, 190; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990) 262-86. Pisano, S., Additions and Omissions in the Book of Samuel: The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Masoretic, LXXand Qumran texts (OBO 57; Freiburg: Editions Universitaires, 1984). Plöger, О., "Reden und Gebete im deuteronomistischen und Chronistischen Geschichtwerk", in W. Schneemelcher (ed.), Festschrift für Gunther Dehn (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1957) 35-49. , Theokratie und Eschatologie (WMANT 2; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1959). Pomykala, K.E., The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism. Its History and Significance for Messianism (JBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 07; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). , "Images of David in Early Judaism", in C.A. Evans (ed.), Of Scribes and Sages. Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture (Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 9; London: T&T Clark, 2004) 1.33-46. Porten, В., Archives from Elephantine; the life of an ancient Jewish military colony (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968). Preuss, H.D., "ПУ]5Г, in TDOTX(GmaA Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999) 535. Rad, G. von, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (BWANT 54; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930). Rendsburg, A.G., "The Northern Origin of 'The Last Words of David' (2 Sam 23,1-7)", Bib 69 (1988) 113-21. , "Additional Notes on 'the Last Word of David' (2 Samuel 23:1-7)", Bib 70 (1989) 403-8. Richardson, H. Neil, "Last Words of David: some notes on 2 Samuel 23:1-7", JBL 90 (1971) 257-66. Riley, W., King and Cultus in Chronicles. Worship and the Reinterpretation of History (JSOTSup 160; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). Roberts, J.J.M., The Bible and the ancient Near East: collected essays (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002). Rofe, Α., "The Battle of David and Goliath - Folklore, Theology, Eschatology", in B.A. Levine/J. Neusner (ed.), Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987)117-51. , "Ephraimite versus Deuteronomistic History", in D. Garrone/F. Israel (ed.), Storia e tradizioni di Israele: Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin (Brescia: Paideia, 1991) 221—35. Römer, T./de Ригу, Α., "Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH): History of Research and Debated Issues", in Israel Constructs its History. Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (JSOTSup 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) 24-141. Rose, W.H., "Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period", in R. Albertz/Bob Becking (ed.), Yahwism after the Exile. Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era. Papers read at the First Meeting of the European Association for Biblical Studies, Utrecht, 6—9 August, 2000, (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003) 168-85. Rothstein, J./Hänel, J., Das erste Buch der Chronik, ΚΑΤ (Leipzig: A. Dietertsche, 1927). Rudolph, W., Jeremia ( Tübingen: Mohr, 1947). , Chronikbücher (HAT 21; Tübingen: Mohr, 1955). Saebo, M., Sacharja 9-14. Untersuchungen von Text und Form (WMANT 34; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969). Segal, M.H., Sefer Ben Sira ha-shalem (Jerusalem: Mosad Byalik, 1953).

168

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

Sclmiedewind, W. M., Society and Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Sam 7:1—17 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). Sclmiedewind, W.M., The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (JSOTSup 197; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Shaver, J.R., Torah and the Chronicler's History Work. An Inquiry into the Chronicler's References to Laws, Festivals, and Cultic Institutions in Relationship to Pentateuchal Legislation (Atlanta: Scholars Press,1989). Shinan A./Zakowitch Y., "Midrash on Scripture and Midrash within Scripture", Scripta Hieroslymitana 31 (1986) 259-77. Smend, R., "Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte", in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: G. von Rad zum 70. Geburstag (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971) 494-509. , Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln: Kohlshammer, 41989). Smith, J.M.P., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habbakuk, Obadiah and Joel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912). Smith, H. P., Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899). Smith, M., Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1987). Soden, W. von, "Gibt es Zeugnis, das die Babylonier an Marduks Wiederauferstehung glaubten?", ZA ns 16-17 (1952-55) 130-66. Soggin, Α., Introduction to the Old Testament (London: SCM Press, 1989). Stern, M., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism I (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974). Sweeney, M.A., Isaiah 1—4 and the Post-exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition (BZAW 171; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988). , Isaiah 1—39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL XVI; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996). , The Twelve Prophets, volume two (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000).

Tadmor, H., "Judah", in D.M. Lewis et al. (ed.), The Cambridge Ancient History VI. The Fourth Century B.C. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2 1994) 261-91. Talmon, S., King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel: Collected Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1986). Tcherikover, V.A./Fuks, A./Stern. M. (ed.), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum vol. 3 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964). Tournay, R.J., Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (JSOTSup 118; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991). Ulrich, E.C., Jr., The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978). Van Seters, J., "The Chronicler's Account of Solomon's Temple Building: A Continuity Theme", in M.P. Graham/K.G. Hoglund/S.L. McKenzie (ed.), The Chronicler as Historian (JSOTSup 371; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 283-300. Veijola, Т., Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomischen Darstellung (AASF 193; Helsinki: Suomaleinen Tiedeakademia, 1975). , Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomischen Historiographie (AASF Series В 198; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977). , "Deuteronomistic Roots of Judaism", in Ch. Cohen/A. Hurvitz/S. Paul (ed.), Sefer Moshe. The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004) 459-78. Wallace, Ν., "What Chronicles has to say about Psalms", in M.P. Graham/S.L. McKenzie (ed.), The Chronicler as Author. Studies in Text and Texture (JSOTSup 263, 1999) 267—291. Weinfeld, Μ., Deuteronomy andDeuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). , "Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel", ZAW 88 (1976) 17-56.

Selected Bibliography

169

, "Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia", in R. E. Friedman (ed.), The Poet and the Historian. Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (HSS 26; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 75-115. Welch, A.C., The Work of the Chronicler: Its Purpose and Date (Schweich Lectures 1938; London: Oxford University Press, 1939). Wellhausen, J., Die Komposition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 21889). , Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885 ([German original 1878]). Wenham, G.J., "Were David's Sons Priests?", ZAW81 (1975) 79-82. Whitelam, K.W., The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 12; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1979). Widengren, G., "The Persian Period", in J.H. Hayes/J.M. Miller (ed.), Israelite and Judaean History (London: SCM Press, 1977) 489-538. Willi, Т., Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT 106; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972). , Juda - Jehud - Israel. Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Judentums in persischer Zeit (FAT 12; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995). Williamson, H.G.M., "Exile and After: Historical Study", in D.W. Baker/B.T. Arnold (ed.), The Face of the Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches (Leicester: Apollos, 1999) 236-65. , "The Accession of Solomon in the Book of Chronicles", VT 26 (1976) 351-61. , Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977). , "The Sure Mercies of David", JSS 23 (1978) 31-49. , 1 and 2 Chronicles, (NCBC; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982). , "The Dynastic Oracle in the Book of Chronicles", in A. Rofe and Y. Zakovitch (ed.), Studies in Ancient Narrative and Historiography: Sefer Yitshak Aryeh Zeligman (Isaac Leo Seeligman Anniversary Volume) vol. 3 (Jerusalem: Rubenstein, 1983) 305-18. , Ezra, Nehemiah, (WBC 16; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985). , Ezra and Nehemiah (Old Testament Guides; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 87-8. , "The Temple in the Book of Chronicles", in W. Horbury (ed.), Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel (JSNTSup 48; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 15-31. , Review of A.G. Auld, Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible's Kings. VT46 (1996) 553-55. , Variations on a Theme. King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (The Didsbury Lectures 1997; Cumbria: Paternoster, 1998). , "The Messianic Texts in Isaiah 1-39", in J. Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 239-70. , "Book of the Month. Mirror Images", The Expository Times 117 (2005) 19-21. Wilson, G.H., Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, (SBLDS 76; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 116-21.

Wilson, R.R., "Genealogy, Genealogies", in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/Auckland: Doubleday, 1992) 2.929-32. Wolff, H.W., Micah. A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1990). Wright, J.W., "The Legacy of David in Chronicles: The Narrative function of 1 Chronicles 23-27", JBL 110 (1991) 229-42. Zimmerli, W., Ezekiel 1 (Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). Zunz, L., "Dibre-Hajamim oder die Bücher der Chronik", in Die gottesdienstliche Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt (Berlin: Aher, 1832) 13-36.

Index of Ancient Sources

Scriptural References Genesis 1 1-11 1:31 2-3 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:16 16 17:6 17:7 17:16 17:20 35:11-12 36:31 43:7

148 89 n. 52 90 148 90 90 90 84 n. 36 54 54, 87 n. 46, 158 133 87 n. 46, 158 54 n. 53 54, 87 n. 46 54 n. 53 84 n. 36

Exodus 4:16 6:17 6:18 7:1 13:21-22 14:13-14 15:18 18 18:13-27 19-24 19:3b-8 19:5 19:5-6 21:6 24:16-17 25-30 25:1-35:11 32-34 32:12-13 35:4-29 35:4-40:33 39:32 39:43 40:33 40:34-35

145 142 80 n. 23 145 144 n. 40 61 49 n. 46 79, 79 n. 15 79 151 99 99 99 49 n. 48 92 n. 58 43 46, 101 158 114 46 46 90 90 90 92 n. 58

Leviticus 7:1 7:11 9:6 9:23 26 26:3-13

96 n. 71 96 n. 71 92 n. 58 92 n. 58 75 131, 132

Numbers 3:19 3:21 3:27 10:33-36 12:3 12:6-8 12:7-8 18:19 25:12

80 n. 23 142 80 n. 23 94 140, 141 152 140 18 128

Deuteronomy 1:9-18 1:13 1:15 1:16-17 1:17 4:1-2 5:26-28 5:30 6:4-5 6:10 7:1-5 7:3 7:16 12:10-11 14:1 15:2 15:17 16:18 16:18-20 16:18-18:20 16:18-18:22 17 17:8 17:8-9

79, 155 155 155 155 79 79 85 85 11 84 114 154 n. 24 114 45 n. 29 100 96 n. 71 49 n. 48 76,79,81 79,80,83,105 79 n. 13 76, 83 n. 31, 86, 87, 100, 104 n. 101 75 77 76

171

Index of Ancient Sources 17:8-13 17:9 17:9-12 17:14-15 17:14-20

17:16-17 17:17 17:20 17:20b 18:9 18:15 18:15-19 18:15-22 18:17-18 18:18 19:4 21:6 29:26 30:6 31 31:1-8 31:17 32:6 32:17 32:18 32:36 33:1 33:29 34:9 34:10

79, 80, 83, 105 77 η. 1 84 n. 33 84, 100 33, 83, 84 n. 35, 86 n. 99, 104 n. 102, 106 84 n. 36, 99 n. 80, 100, 101 n. 82 86 86 100 84 84 100, 101 n. 82 100 104 n. 102 100 101, 101 n. 82, 152, 153 96 n. 71 84 114 126 46 46 114 100 114 100 114 101 n. 83 140 n. 33 152 152, 160

Joshua 1 1:7-9 13 13:1-6 14:6 18-19 19:1-9 21:43-45 21:44 22:4 23 23:1 23:12 24-1 Sam 12 24 + Judg

46 11 46 11, 138 101 n. 83 118, 148 59 n. 61 148 25 25 11 25 154 n. 24 98 n. 74 99 n. 74

Judges 1:1-2:9

11

17:15

1:1-3:11 2:10 2:17 2:20-21 2:23 3:6 3:26 5:5 8:22-23 13:6 13:8 17-21

99 n. 74 85 11 11 11 154 n. 24 16 n. 38 97 n. 71 85,98,99 101 n. 83 101 n. 83 98 n. 74

1 Samuel 1:22 8-12 8:1-5 8:6-22 8:6-22a 8:22b 8:7 8:9 8:11 9:10 10:25 10:27 12 12:12 12:17-20 14:19 14:47 16:13 27:12

49 n. 48 156 n. 36 85 n. 38 159 85 n. 38 85 n. 38 85,99 84 n. 34 84 n. 34 101 n. 83 84 n. 34 128 n. 16 159 98 98 16 n. 38 140 n. 33 37 49 n. 48

2 Samuel 1-4 2:10 5 5:5 5:14 5:17-25 6 6:17-18 7 7:1 7:11 7:13-14 7:14 7:16 8 8:1 8:2 8:5-6

36 36 40 37 n. 3 142 95 41 87 n. 42 44, 87, 145 44 35 9 32, 53 n. 52, 90 32, 45 n. 28, 109 n. 6 45 n. 28 95 95 95

172 8:14 8:17 8:17-18 8:18 12:29-31 15 15:2-5 20:25-26 23:1-7

BCing and T e m p l e in Chronicles

23:2 23:5 24 24:25

95 42 87 n. 42 42, 43 95 77 78 n. 5 87 n. 42 102, 103, 103 n. 94, 103 n. 96 103, 104 133 44 87 n. 42

1 Kings 1 1:1-2:11 1:29-39 1:32-33 1:36-37 1:38 1:44 1:5 2:12-21:29 2:15 2:26-27 2:3 2:5-9 2:35 3 3:4 3:9-10 3:11-13 3:13 3:14 3:15 5:4 5:4-5 5:5 5:6-8 5:15 5:17-19 6:1 6-7 7:50 8 8:22 8:50-53 8:51-53 8:62-64 8:65 9

51 26 10 137 n. 27 47 n. 36 137 n. 27 137 n. 27 51 26 36 n. 2, 51 87 n. 42 27 25 87 n. 42 77 87 n. 42 78 n. 5 140 86, 92 n. 58, 140 53 n. 52 87 n. 42 97 n. 71, 138 95 100, 97 n. 71 86 96 45, 45 n. 29 148 43, 158 144 28,92, 110 9 91 111 87 n. 42 87 n. 42 28

9:25 10:14-25 10:23-29 10:27 10:28-29 11 11:1 11:3 11:4 11:6 11:12-13 11:13 11:29-39 11:32 11:34-36 11:36 11:38-39 12:15 12:22 12:25-33 12-2 Kgs 17 13:4-12 13:14 13:21 13:26 13:29 13:31 13:33 14:17 15 15:3-5a 15:4 15:12 15:13 17:18 18:30 20:28 21:27-29 22:1-38 22:34-37 22:41-50 22-2 Kgs 25

87 n. 42, 105 86 86 86 86 55, 87 n. 41 87 n. 41 87 n. 41 26 26 10 15, 16 28 15, 16 10 15, 16, 19 55 28 101 n. 83 29 29 101 n. 83 101 n. 83 101 n. 83 101 n. 83 101 n. 83 101 n. 83 29 144 60 10 19 60 60 101 n. 83 126 101 n. 83 72 29 72 29, 60 26

2 Kings 1:11-14 1:9 2:21-22 3 4:16 4:21-22 4:25 4:27 4:40

101 n. 101 n. 127 60 101 n. 101 n. 101 n. 101 n. 101 n.

83 83

83 83 83 83 83

Index of Ancient Sources 5:8 5:14-15 5:20 6:6 6:9-10 6:15 7:2 7:17-19 8:2 8:4 8:7-8 8:9 8:11 8:18-19 8:19 9:1-28 9:22 10:12-14 11 12:3 13:19 14 14:6 15:2 15:5 15:35 17:32 18-19 18-20 19:14-19 21:1-18 21:8 21:19-25 22:1-23:30 23 23:16-17 23:21-23 23:22 23:25 23:26-25:30 9-10

101 n. 83 101 n. 83 101 n. 83 101 n. 83 101 n. 83 101 n. 83 101 n. 83 101 n. 83 101 n. 83 101 n. 83 101 n. 83 27 101 n. 83 11 19 28 16 n. 38 28 62, 63 63 101 n. 83 63 27 65 41,42 65 29 28 65 92 n. 60 68 27 69 69 71 101 n. 83 69, 70, 87 n. 42 70,71 11 11 28

1 Chronicles 1-9 1:28 1:34 2 2:3-4:23 2-9 2:7 2:10-17 3 3:10-16

20,21,30,38, 147, 149 109 n. 5 109 n. 5 38,39 39 22 21 38 38 38

3:21 3:4b 3:5 4:28-43 5:lb-2 5:3 5:19-20 5:20 5:25-26 5:27-38 5:28-41 5:41 6:3 6:16-17 7:10-21 7:25-27 9:1 9:28-32 10 10:13 10:13-14 10:14 10:14b 11 -12 11 1 11 1 - 2 11 1 - 3 11 1 - 9 11 4 11 4 - 9 11 9 11 10 11 10-11 11 10-12:41 11 11-47 11 - 2 Chron 9 12 12:1-8 12:9-16 12:17-19 12:20-23 12:24 12:24-39 12:39 13:1-14 13:5 13:6 14 14:1-17 14:4 14:8 14:10 14:14-15

38 n. 6 37 n. 3 142 59 n. 61 39 39 21 21 21 38 80 n. 23 80 n. 23 80 n. 23 142 38 38 54 n. 55, 74 58 30, 31 n. 79, 55 18, 50 93 50, 55 31,35,36 31 37 68 36, 37 40 54 n. 55 36 37 54 n. 55 37 31, 37 37 56 37 37 37 37 37 36 n. 2 37 54 n. 55 31 54 n. 55 54 n. 55 31 40 142 54 n. 55 61 61

174 14:17 15:3 15:25 15:26 15:27 15:28 15:29 15-16 15-17 16 16-17 16:1-36 16:2-3 16:8-36 16:11 16:15 16:16 16:19 16:27 16:31 16:32-36 16:32b-33 16:34 16:37-40 16:40 16:41 17 17-22 17:1 17:7 17:7-14 17:8b 17:9 17:9-10 17:10 17:10-14 17:11 17:1 lc-12 17:11-14 17:12 17:12-14 17:13 17:13-14 17:14 18-20 18:8 18:11 18:17 19:17 21

BCing and Temple in Chronicles 41 54 n. 55 53, 54 53 41 53, 54, 54 n. 55 53 31 108 43, 108, 109, 110, 111, 118, 127 53, 54, 111 41 41 108 93 n. 61 109 n. 5 109 n. 5 109 n. 5 109 n. 5 110 110 109 n. 5 127 43 43 n. 22 108 13,31,32,43,73, 109, 130, 133, 145 31 45 37, 100 31, 134 41 135 44, 131 17, 18,35,36,45, 48, 130 33 134 134 133 35,36 51,52,91 31,31 n. 79,36, 53 n. 52, 135 50 17, 18,32,35, 109-10 n. 6 44 48, 51 51 41 54 n. 55 43, 141

21:2 21:4 21:5 21:8 22 22:1 22:2 22:3-4 22:5 22:6-13 22:6-16 22:7-10 22:7-13 22:8-10 22:9 22:9-10 22:9-13 22:10 22:11-13 22:12-13 22:13 22:14 22:15 22:16 22:18 22:19 23-26 23-27 23:12 23:14 25:1 26:20-32 26:29 26:29-32 26:30 26:30-32 26:32 27:1 27:2-15 28 28:1 28:1-10 28:1-21 28:2 28:2-10 28:3-7 28:4 28:5 28:6 28:7 28:7b-10 28:8 28:8-9

67 54 n. 55 54 n. 55 54 n. 55 45, 46, 130, 131, 135 48 48 48 48 33 100 5 n. 29, 45 131 17 25, 60, 94, 133, 134 130,131 134,135 52, 91, 134, 135 52 51, 53 n. 52 46 48, 141 48 48 25 46, 93 n. 61 81, 82 n. 29 20, 31 80 n. 23 101 n. 83 102,107 83 80, 81 80, 82 n. 29 81 42 81 81 n. 24 81 n. 24 45, 46,48, 132, 135 45 135 100 93, 100, 101 33 17 39, 49, 100, 134, 150 32,48,49,88, 110 η. 6, 150 49, 91, 135, 150 49, 50, 51 53 n. 52 93, 135 46

Index of Ancient Sources 28:9 28:10 28:11-12 28:11-19 28:13a 28:13b—18 28:20 28:20-21 28:23-31 29 29:1-9 29:2-9 29:3-9 29:10-19 29:11 29:15 29:18 29:19 29:20 29:20-21 29:20-22 29:21 29:23 29:25 29:26-30

4 9 , 5 1 , 9 1 , 9 3 n. 61 49 48 31,40, 46, 101 48 48 46 15, 16 58 110 46,48 48 70 108, 117 39, 88, 110 110 109 n. 5 47 47, 47 n. 37, 108, 110 47 n. 36 47 47 32,48, 54, n. 55, 68, 88, 110 η. 6, 150 48, 50, 54 n. 55 48

2 Chronicles 1:1 1:12 2:4 2:6 2:14 2:16 3-4 3-5 3:1 3:3-4:22 3:3-4:22 3:7 5-7 5:1 5:2 5:2-5 5:7 5:10 5:11-13 5:13 5:14 6 6:1-11 6:10-11 6:11

48, 50 53 n. 52 58 48 48 48, 53 n. 52 46 40 48 158 43 144 53, 54 48, 51 54 53 136 27, 50, 54, 136 136 108 92 108 111 111 50, 54, 136

6:12-42 6:12-42 6:16 6:28-39 6:40-42 6:41 6:42 7:2 7:3 7:6 7:11-22 7:12-15 7:12b-15 7:13-15 7:13-22 7:14 7:17 7:17-18 7:18 7:19-20 8:12 8:12-16 8:14 9 9:8 9:11 10:15 10:16 11:2 11:3 11:13 11:16 12:1 12:5 12:6-7 12:12 12:14 13:1-23 13:4 13:4-12 13:5 13:8 13:10-11 13:11-12 13:12 13:13-20 13:14 13:14-15 13:15 13:22 13:23 14:3

110 57 51 60 91 50, 93, 94 13, 14, 17, 117 92 108 108 57 57 44 57 59 60, 62, 63, 67, 73, 126, 127, 133, 136 53 n. 52 17, 51 33 56 58 105 82, 101 n. 83 17 32, 48, 88, 110 η. 6, 150 43 28, 36 n. 2, 55 56 101 n. 83 54 n. 55, 56 56 57 54 n. 55, 56, 56 n. 58, 58 56 n. 58 57 57 93 n. 61 58 54 n. 55, 57 29, 58 15, 17, 18,33, 55 15, 33, 58, 65, 88 56 n. 58 58 18, 58 40 18 58 54 n. 55, 58 93 n. 62 60 59, 93 n. 61

176 14:4-7 14:5 14:5-5:15 14:5-7 14:6 14:8-14 14:9-15 14:10 15:1 15:2 15:4 15:8 15:12 15:12-15 15:13 15:15 16:7-9 16:12 17-20 17:3-4 17:4 17:5 17:11 17:12-19 18:4 19:1-11 19:3 19:4-11 19:5 19:8 19:10 19:11 20 20:1 20:3 20:4 20:9 20:12-13 20:17 20:20 20:21 20:27-28 20:27-30 20:29 20:30 21:7 21:8-10 21:10 21:12 21:12-15 21:16 22:1-9 22:3

BCing and Temple in Chronicles 94 25 59 60 25, 59, 93 n. 61 40 61 59 59 56 n. 58, 59, 93 n. 61 59 59 59 59 59, 93 n. 61 25, 59, 94 60 59, 93 n. 61 29, 60 60 93 n. 61 61 62 61 60 83 60, 93 n. 61 61,76, 79, 80, 83 76, 77, 79,81 76, 77 n. 2 76, 77 76, 77, 82, 83 61,92, 127 31 93 n. 61 60, 93 60 127 60 61 108, 118 61 61 31 25,94 15, 17, 18, 19,33, 49, 62,88 61 56 n. 58 61 61 62 62 62

22:5-9 22:7-9 22:9 22:10-23:21 23 23-27 23:2 23:2-3 23:5-6 23:6 23:7-10 23:13 23:18 23:19 24:2 24:14 24:16 24:18 24:20 24:24 24:25 24:27 25 25:4 25:5-16 25:9 25:14 25:14-16 25:20 25:24 26 26:5 26:5-15 26:16 26:18 26:18-19 26:19 26:29-32 27:2-3 27:2bc 27:3-4 28:1 28:1-27 28:2 28:2-4 28:6 28:7 28:12-14 28:19 28:22 28:22-25 29 29:1-2

62 28 93 n. 61 62 62 82 82 62 62, 63 13 62 62 82 62, 63 63 63 63 56 n. 58 56 n. 58 56 n. 58 63 93 n. 62 63 27 63 101 n. 83 63, 64 64 63 63 64 64,93 n. 61 64 56 n. 58, 65 56 n. 58, 64 13 64 82 64 65 65 82 65 94 65 56 n. 58 153 n. 19 44 56 n. 58 56 n. 58 65 66 66

Index of Ancient Sources 29:3 29:3-5 29:4-7 29:6 29:6b-9 29:10 29:12-14 29:18-19 29:20 29:24 29:25 29:25-30 29:26-27 29:30 29:34 29:35 30 30:1 30:2 30:5 30:6 30:7 30:8-9 30:10-11 30:16 30:18-20 30:19 30:25 31:1 31:21 32 32:1-23 32:3 32:22 32:23 32:24 32:27-29 33:1-9 33:1-20 33:3-7 33:8 33:17 33:21-25 33:23 34-35 34:2-35:19 34:3 34:6 34:6-7 34:8 34:14 34:24-28 34:25

66 66 58 56 n. 58 66 66 66 58 66 54 n. 55 82 102 66 66 66 66 67,71 54 n. 55 67 67, 68 109 n. 5 56 n. 58 67 67 101 n. 83 67 93 n. 61 67, 68 54 n. 55 93 n. 61 28 68 33 94 68 68 68 69 68 69 27 69 69 69 70 70 70, 93 n. 61 59 n. 61 70 70 70 70 56 n. 58

34:33 35:3 35:4 35:4-6 35:11-19 35:12-15 35:15 35:18 35:20 35:20-27 35:22 35:23-28 36 36:1 36:1-4 36:6-7 36:11-14 36:14 36:15 36:16 36:17-20 36:21 36:22-23

70 70 70 105 70 105 17 70, 71 71 40 18 71 40 71 72 72 72 56 n. 58 15 73 72 73, 75 73, 75

Ezra 2:2 3:2 3:6-13 3:10 5:1-2 6:18 7:1 7:1-5 7:6 7:10 7:27-28 8:20 9:2 9:6-15 10:2-3 10:10-11 10:14 10:17 10:19 10:44

83 n. 30 101 n. 83 83 n. 30 157 83 n. 30 157 154 38 154 154 157 157 154 n. 25 157 154 n. 25 154 n. 25 154 n. 25 154 n. 25 154 n. 25 154 n. 25

Nehemiah 7:7 9 9:32 9:36 10:38-40 11:4

83 n. 30 157 14 14 81 n. 26 74

178

BCing and Temple in Chronicles

11:11-12 11:16 11:22-23 12:24 12:36 12:44-13:3 12:45 13:6 13:23-24 13:29

81 n. 26 81, 81 n. 26 101 n. 83 101 n. 83, 157 101 n. 83 14, 15 157 157 154 n. 25 128

Job 8:9 19:24 40:28

120 49 n. 46 49 n. 48

Psalms 1-89 2:12 9:6 9:19 10:16 12:6 18:8-16 19:10 19:44 21:5 21:7 22:27 24:5 25:9 32:8-9 33:16 35:3 37:11 37:29 37:35-36 39:13 45:7 45:18 46:10 48:15 52:10 60:8-10 61:9 65:6 68:16-18 68:23-4 72 72:1-2 72:2-7 72:3b 72:7

111, 112, 112 n. 10 95 49 n. 46 49 n. 46 49 n. 46 104 103 49 n. 46 49 n. 46 49 n. 46 49 n. 46 49 n. 46 139 140 104 140 n. 33 104 140 49 n. 46 145 n. 47 110 49 n. 46 49 n. 46 140 n. 34 49 n. 46 49 n. 46 104 49 n. 46 139 105 n. 103 104 98, 100, 137, 150 139 97-98 97 n. 72 139

72:8 76:4 77:21 78:69 82 89 89:4 89:7 89:9 89:10 89:11 89:12 89:13 89:14 89:35-52 89:39 89:51-52 90 90:1 90:13 90-106 90-150 92:8 96 96:6 96:12-13 98:2 99:6 103:7 104:5 105 105:4 105:15 105:26 105:42-43 105:6 105:9 105-106 106 106:1 106:5 106:16 106:23 106:32 107 107:1 110 111:3 111:8 111:10 112:3 112:9 118

137 140 n. 34 114 89 n. 51 95, 95 n. 67, 95 n. 68 113, 114, 115, 116 113, 115 n. 27 115 n. 27 115 n. 27 115 n. 27 115 n. 27 116 n. 27 116 n. 27 116 n. 27 112 113 113 114 101 n. 83 114 112, 113 n. 19 111, 112 49 n. 46 108, 109, 109 n. 5, 111, 115 109 n. 5 109 n. 5 139 114,115 114,115 49 n. 46 108, 109, 110, 111, 115, 133 93 n. 61 113 114,115 113 109 n. 5, 113 109 n. 5 113 108, 111, 114, 115, 127 128 n. 14 113 114,115 113,114 114,115 127 128 n. 14 104 49 n. 46 49 n. 46 49 n. 46 49 n. 46 49 n. 46 127

Index of Ancient Sources 118:1 119 119:123 127:1 132 132:4 132:8-10 136 136:1 145:1-2 145:21 145-146 147:2 148:6

128 n. 14 112 139 89 n. 51 91-92, 94, 110, 111, 118, 133 110 50,91, 110, 111 127 128 n. 14 49 n. 46 49 n. 46 112 89 n. 51 49 n. 46

Proverbs 3:34 8:26 12:19 29:14

140 16 n. 38 49 n. 46 49 n. 46

Ecclesiastes 12:1 12:2 12:6

16 n. 38 16 n. 38 16 n. 38

Isaiah 1:21-26 1:23 1:26 2 2:1-4 2:2 2:2-4 3:2 3:2-3 3:14 4:2 4:2-6 4:3-6 4:5 4:5 4:5b-6 7:3 8:23b-9:6 9:5-6 11:1-5 11:3-5 11:1-10 17:1-3 18:7 22:15

78 n. 7 78 n. 9 78 n. 8 106 105 n. 103 96 105 n. 104 78 n. 8 78 n. 7 78 n. 7, 78 n. 9, 78 n. 10 143 n. 40 143 n. 40 143 n. 40 105 n. 103 143 n. 40 143 n. 40 78 n. 8 98, 98 n. 73, 150 96-97, 137 100 139 97, 106, 137 138 n. 31 105 n. 104 41,42

23 24-27 25:6 26:4 32:1-5 37:14-21 40-66 40:26 40:28 41:2 41:8 41:9 41:10 41:20 41:21 42:1-7 42:1 42:5 42:10 42:19 43:1 43:7 43:8 43:10 43:12 43:15 43:18 43:20 44:1 44:2 44:6 44:7 44:21 45:1 45:4 45:8 45:17 47:7 48:13 48:20 49:3 49:4 49:5 49:5-6 49:6 49:7 50:2 51:5 51:6 51:8 51:9 51:10 51:13

179 116 n. 29 14 105 n. 104 49 n. 46 100 92 n. 60 139 116 n. 27 116 n. 27 116 n. 29 116 116 116 n. 27 116 n. 27 116 143 n. 41 115 n. 27, 115 116 n. 27 116 n. 27 116 116 n. 27 116 n. 27 116 n. 27 116 116 n. 27 116 116 n. 27 115 n. 27, 116 116 116 128 n. 14 115 n. 27 116 40, 116, 116 n. 27, 116 n. 29 115 n. 27, 116 139 49 n. 46 49 n. 46 116 n. 27 116 116 143 n. 41 116 153 116 116 n. 29 115 n. 27 116 n. 27, 139 139 139 115 n. 27, 116 n. 27 115 n. 27 116 n. 27

180 51:16 51:17 51:17-23 51:22-23 51:23 52:7 52:13 52:15 53:5 53:11 55:1-2 55:l-2a 55:1-5 55:3 55:3-5 55:3b 55:5 56:1 59:17 61:3 61:10 62:1 66:1

Jeremiah 10 12 1-4:4 16-17 17 8:15 14:19 22 22:24-27 22:30 23 23:1-4 23:1-6 23:5 23:5-6 25:9 26:10 26:10-12 26:11-12

27:6 29:10 30:8 30:10 31-33 31:15-20 31:15-22 31:15-25

BCing and Temple in Chronicles 116 n. 27 144 143 144 144 116 116 116 n. 29 143 116 116 116 116 17, 116, 117, 145 116 110 117 139 139 139 139 139 94

125 125 27 105 n. 104 105 n. 104 154-155 133 133 129 n. 17 129 n. 18 129 n. 17 129 n. 17 129 129 129 n. 17 121, 129, 129 n. 18 40 78 78 78 40 120, 159 132 40 129 124 122, 124 122

31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31

15-34 18-19 19 21-22 21-28 23 23-24 23-26 23-40 27-34 28 29-30 31-34

31:33 31:34 31:35-37 31:35-37 31:35-40 32:1-15 32:7 32:11 32:16-44 32:18 32:19b 32:36-44 32:39 33 33:1-13 33:2 33:4-5 33:6 33:6-8 33:8 33:11 33:12-13 33:14 33:14-26 33:15 33:16 33:19-26 33:21 33:22 33:26 35:4 36:20-22 43:10 46:27 46:28 49:23-25 51:57

124 125 121 122 122 122,124 124 122 121,125 122,124 125 124,125 105 n. 104, 124,129 126 124 121 129 124 n. 6 125 129 129 125 124 n. 4 124 n. 4 125, 126, 129 125 126, 129, 130, 146, 159 127, 128, 129, 130 128 126 133 126, 127 143 128 127 n. 13 120, 121 19, 120, 121, 128, 129, 129 n. 18, 130, 159 121,129 129 122, 129 40 40 40, 109 n. 5, 129 101 n. 83, 144 121 40 40 40 138 n. 31 128 n. 14

181

Index of Ancient Sources La, 2 2:1

126 126 η. 12

£z( 3:1 3:1 17: 18: 18:

34 34: 34: 34: 34: 34: 34: 34: 34: 34: 34: 34: 36: 36: 36: 36: 36: 36: 36: 37 37: 37: 37: 37: 37: 37: 37: 37: 37: 37: 37: 37: 37: 37: 37: 40 40: 40: 43: 43: 43: 47: 47:

124 η. 3 124 η. 3 73 124 125 η. 8 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 131 131 132 131 132 131 132 128 η. 16 132 136 126 133 145 145,159 132 133 132,134 133,134 130 132 19 135 132 132, 133, 135 134, 135 132,134 132 135 132, 133 144 144 161 133 46 143 126,127

47:13-20 47-48

138 138 η. 31

Daniel 12:3

49 η. 46

Hosea 2:20-25 7:10-13

122 99

Joel 4:4-8

138 η. 31

Amos 1:11 7:9 7:16 9:1

49 η. 46 109 η. 5 109 η. 5 144

Micah 3:1 3:1-2 3:3-4 3:5-8 3:9 3:9-11 4:1-4 4:1-5 4:4 4:5 5:1-3 5:1-4 5:1-5 5:2 5:2-4 5:4 5:4-5 5:4b-5a 7:3 7:18

78 η. 10 78 η. 7 96 97 η. 71 78 η. 10 78 η. 7 105 η. 104 96, 137 97 η. 71 49 η. 46 98 η. 73 96 98,98 η. 74, 106, 150 97 η. 71 97 η. 71 95 η. 69,96 97 η. 71,98 η. 73 98 η. 73 78 η. 7,78 η. 9 49 η. 46

Habakuk 2:6 3:6

145 η. 47 49 η. 46

Zephania 2:7 3:14-15

138 η. 31 137, 138, 139

Haggai 1:1 1:12 1:14

83 η. 30 83 η. 30 83 η. 30

182 2:1 2:4 Zechariah 2:14 2:14 3:1 3:8 4:12-14 4:7 6:13 9:1-7 9:1-8 9:9 9:9-10 9:9-17 9:10 11:4-14 12:1-13:1 12:2 12:2-13:6 12:2-6 12:3 12:6 12:7 12:7-8 12:7-12 12:8 12:8-9 12:9 12:9-12 12:9-13:1 12:10-13:1 12:10-14 12:12-13 12-14 13:1 14:16 Malachi 1:14 2:4-9 3:22-24 Ben Sira 24:33 46:1 47:8 48:10

King and Temple in Chronicles 83 η. 30 83 η. 30

137, 138 139 83 η. 30 83 η. 30 83 η. 30 144 83 η. 30 138 138, 140 η. 34 137 η. 27, 138, 139, 140, 141 137, 139, 143 η. 41, 146, 159 137 140, 140 η. 34 143 η. 41 144 143, 144 142 η. 37 141, 142 144 141 142, 142 η. 35, 145 η. 47 141, 142, 142 η. 35, 142 η. 37, 145 142 η. 35 141, 142,144,145, 145 η. 47, 146, 159 142 142 145 η. 47 141, 142 143 143 142 14 142 128 η. 14

128 η. 14 128 153

102 153 102 153

1 Maccabees 3:48

92, 92 η. 60, 93

2 Maccabees 4:7 8:23

157 n. 39 92, 93, 94

Acts 2:30 4:25

101 101

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Code of Hammurapi

i-v

90 n. 55

Enuma Elish IV.135-5.66 V.l 17-130 VI. 1-34 VI. 61-6

89 89 89 89

Early Jewish Literature Pseudoepigrapha 4 Ezra 14:21-22

156 n. 38

Dead Sea Scrolls lQpHab 8.6-13 4QJerc 4QpPs a 4.13-16 4QPs e 4QSam a 4QXII e llQPs a llQPs a 17.2-11 llQPs b

145 n. 47 128 145 n. 47 112 n. 10 22, 23, 128 n. 16 142 n. 35 101, 102, 112, 112 n. 10, 112 n. 101 112 n. 10

Philo De Vita Mosis 1.148-49 1.158

104 n. 101 104 n. 101

De specialibus legibus 4.157

84 n. 36

Josephus Antiquities 4.223

84 η. 36

Index of Ancient Sources 6.166 8.109-10 11.298 12.157 12.237-38

101 101 157 n. 39 157 n. 39 157 n. 39

27b,20b-22b Ketuboth 3a Megilah 15a, 31b Sanhedrin 21b Sotah 48b Sukkah 20a

156 156 156 156 156 156

n. 38 n. 38 n. 38 n. 38 n. 38 n. 38

104 104 104 104

n. n. n. n.

Classical Authors Christian Authors Diodorus Siculus 15.90 15.90.3 15.92.4 40.3 40.3.1-7

147 η. 1 147 η. 1 147 η. 1 156 156

Rabbinic Literature Baba Qama 82a Berakoth

156 n. 38

Eusebius Preparatio 9.27 9.30 9.432b-c 9.447a-b

Evangelica 101 102 101 102