A. Scholars have focused on two major areas of text in their study of the historical books.

Transcription

1 I. INTRODUCTION. A. Scholars have focused on two major areas of text in their study of the historical books. 1. Judges-2 Kgs, written by the Deuteronomist, and is designated the Deuteronomistic History 2. 1 and 2 Chronicles/Ezra/Nehemiah, written by the Chronicler, and called the Chronicler s Work. 3. These have been discussed in terms of major themes, theologies, etc., and furnish the historical basis for a study of Israel's history. B. We will proceed with the Deuteronomist History first, which will be followed by the Chronicler. Part I: The Deuteronomistic History II. BACKGROUND. A. Wellhausen argued: 1. The historical books could not be interpreted in light of the law, but pointed to a late development of it 2. The Hexateuch comprised four major sources (JEDP). 3. Each age interpreted its traditions about its past in different ways a. E.g., Israel viewed its history one way in the 9th century and th another way in the 4th and 5. b. Like the Hexateuch with its different sources reflecting different cultic and social institutions, so the historical books reflected material from different ages of religious development. 1

2 4. Having surveyed the historical books Wellhausen focused on 1 and 2 Chronicles and attempted to show the relationship between the two historical works. a. He argued that Judges-2 Kings served as the basis for the Chronicler's work, which included 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. b. While Judges-2 Kings was dated in the Babylonian Exile and contained the theological views of that day, the Chronicler s work came after the fall of Persia and reflected those theological views. c. This allowed Wellhausen to show:... not only in the case of the Chronicler but also in Judges, Samuel and Kings, that the views and distinctive religious ideals of a particular age have been impressed on the earlier sources. In the case of the Chronicler's history these were the ideals of the Persian period, but in Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings the ideals were those that had arisen in the Babylonian exile which bore strong affinity with the ideas and aims to be found in the book of Deuteronomy The way to get at the earlier source material was by identifying and setting aside this later redactional material. 6. This done it was clear that a considerable variety of documents had been used, and this was further borne out by the fact that the books of Kings refer explicitly to a number of sources which were evidently available in documentary form. 2 a. Cf. Josh 10:13: Book of Jashar b. The author of Joshua is citing a source 1 Ronald E. Clements, One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), Clements, One Hundred Years, 33. 2

3 7. The race was on to trace the sources in the historical books (Joshua[Judges]-2 Kings) in much the same manner that had been done in the Pentateuch/Hexateuch. B. Karl Budde:... argued that much of the source material [in the Historical Books] has been drawn from the same J and E sources as are to be found in the Hexateuch This meant that JEDP should also be considered as major sources for the historical books, along with other source material. 2. Budde went beyond Wellhausen, claiming... that the new literary criticism could solve the problem of the sources of the remaining books of the Former Prophets (Judges to 2 Kings). Such a view was taken up by other scholars, notably O. Eissfeldt in a study of the sources of the books of Judges and 1 and 2 Samuel and from this has obtained a wide currency in the study of the Old Testament The results of such attempts to locate sources in the historical books, have been so illusive in that scholarship has failed... to reach a conclusion that has been as generally convincing to scholarship as was the case with the Hexateuch. It is only an assumption that the J and E documents can be traced in these other books, since it has not been possible to establish positive arguments in favour of such identification. 5 C. Gressmann refined Gunkel s methods. 1. He argued that scholars would have greater success if they would focus on the individual narratives themselves. 2. This adaptation of Gunkel s Gattungsgeschichtliche method in Pentateuchal criticism, produced new questions regarding Israel's conquest, to which Alt made a major contribution. 3 Clements, One Hundred Years, Clements, One Hundred Years, Clements, One Hundred Years, 35. 3

4 D. Albrecht Alt focused on the discrepancy between Joshua and Judges-1 Samuel in regard to Israel s settlement in Canaan. 1. The problem: a. Joshua records Israel s lightning like conquest of certain major areas, Josh 10:29-13:1 b. But Judges-1 Samuel indicate that the people had to share the land with various other people for some time, Judg 1:27-2:5. c. Several scholars attacked this problem, including C. F. Burney, J. Garstang, H. H. Rowley, etc. d. (None of these scholars ever raised the problem of definition in regard to the terms conquest and migration. E.g., was the settling of this country, which involved the displacement of the American Indian, a conquest or a migration?) 2. Alt employed a historico-geographical method in which geographical features (climate and topography) are used to establish a given range of possibilities for the economy and communications of a region, with the result that this information can provide invaluable evidence regarding the background of events He... argued that the monarchy arose in Israel as a dual institution, binding together in the person of the one Davidic king the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah. These had originally existed as separate tribal associations, and reverted to this separateness under Rehoboam. 4. In 1925, using new archaeological data, Alt refined his theory:... small Canaanite city-states, under Egyptian hegemony, with other population elements spread throughout the rural areas and partially controlled by the rulers of the cities. These were of mixed character, and made up largely of sheep-farming, bedouin, who moved their pastures with the changing seasons. The evidence showed a steady and prolonged migration of such people from further east into the settled Palestinian land. 6 Clements, One Hundred Years, 37. 4

5 ... this prolonged settlement of such sheep-farming bedouin in Canaan... came retrospectively to be viewed as a conquest of the land. The event of the occupation of the land was not a concentrated and planned invasion, which could be ascribed to one particular date, but the piecemeal taking over of thinly inhabited territory Alt was comparing Israel s early tribal organization to that of Greek and Italian communities and arguing that just as these early groups existed in 8 amphictyonies, so early tribes of Israel were bound by the common worship of Yhwh. E. Research in the historical books had now formed two different areas of study. 1. Alt s historico-geographical method (as further developed by his student, Martin Noth) proved to be the foundation of all future discussions. 2. The form critical method of examining the individual narrative units, to which we now return. F. Scholars began to notice the connected nature of the various narratives. 1. Wellhausen had pointed to the interconnectedness of the narratives of intrigue and rebellion in David s court. 2. L. Rost (1926) designated 2 Samuel 9-20 a "Succession Narrative, " since it told of Solomon's succession to the throne. He argued: a. This narrative continued to 1 Kings 3. 7 Clements, One Hundred Years, An amphictyony may be defined as an association of neighboring states or tribes in ancient Greece originally established to defend a common religious center and later developing into a league with certain legislative and judicial functions ; generally, any association of neighboring states banded together for their common protection and interest. 5

6 b. We should recognize in the various narrative segments of this passage the overall redactional purpose which they had been made to serve Scholarship began arguing for an interweaving of various documentary sources along the lines of what they had argued for the Pentateuch. 4. More and more emphasis was being placed on: a. Individuals b. How the various narrative units had been put together c. The theological perspectives of each one. 5. The various historical books were being seen as religious books with theological purposes. 6. This was the beginning of redactional criticism which set the stage for Martin Noth and the Deuteronomistic History. G. Noth built upon Alt s amphictyony theory and connected it with the new redactional/traditio-criticism. 1. He saw a close relationship between Israel s organization as an amphictyony and its distinctive traditions of law The central officer of the tribal union was the law-speaker who was responsible for ensuring that the legal and ethical demands of the worship of...god were accepted by all the member tribes Out of this tribal union grew specific traditions, all of which reflected the tribal relationship of mutual obligation to worship the same God. 9 Clements, One Hundred Years, Clements, One Hundred Years, Clements, One Hundred Years, 43. 6

7 4. But in none of these traditions, or narrative segments, could be found any evidence that they once belonged to J or E. 5. Noth was now arguing that no Pentateuchal sources could be found in Joshua at all. 6. In 1943 Noth articulated an alternative to the usual view of Joshua to 2 Kings.... these books were not separate compositions, but rather formed one continuous Deuteronomistic History which began with the law book of Deuteronomy and extended to the end of 2 Kings. This is why in the work the law of Deuteronomy is regarded as expressing the divine will by which the subsequent account of the rise and fall of Israel is judged and interpreted. Deuteronomy 1-3 had been composed as the historical preface to this major piece of history-writing. Subsequently some additions had been made, notably in Judges 1, Joshua and Joshua This was the culmination of scholarly research that had begun 50 years before. a. Noth's hypothesis has been so influential, that nearly all scholarship has embraced a version of the theory. b. We need to be even more familiar with it than the Documentary Hypothesis. III. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS. A. General definition: The Deuteronomist (ic History) is the title given to the body of literature from Deut-2 Kings by the OT scholar Martin Noth. In 1943 Noth hypothesized that Deut-2 Kings was written by a single author, living in Israel during the Exile. This author/editor/compiler made use of earlier oral and written traditions in order to produce his work. The history was expanded through secondary additions by later redactors who belonged to a Deuteronomistic School. Noth s theory disputed an older view which saw the Hexateuch (Genesis -Judges 1 as a work added to by the Deuteronomist. Further, Noth s theory denied any relationship between Genesis-Numbers and the DH. Noth s 12 Clements, One Hundred Years, 44. 7

8 theory has been vigorously defended and rejected, with both sides making revisions in the theory proper in order to produce a different version of the classical theory. 13 B. Deuteronomy is perceived as the introduction to the Deuteronomistic History (DH). C. The anti-monarchic polemic of Deut 17:14-20 and rise of monarchy where the people request a king in 1 Sam 8. D. Jerusalem only as the place of worship (Deut 12:1-14) and Josiah's reform (2 Kgs 22-23). E. If Moses is the supreme prophet (Deut 18) then: 1. There follows a succession of prophets in his tradition, Elijah and Elisha, etc. 2. The use of a prediction-and-fulfillment scheme seen through out the work (2 Sam 7:12-13 and 1 Kgs 8:20; 1 Kgs 11:30-31 and 12:15-16; 1 Kgs 14:7f and 15:27-28; 1 Kgs 16:1-4 and 16:9-14) serves to indicate that these prophets were prophets like Moses in that their words have been fulfilled. 3. The phrase my/his/your servants the prophets attempts to connect the succession of prophets as "servants" like the "servant" Moses. IV. THE CLASSIC THEORY. 14 A. Noth s theory may be summarized as follows Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3d ed. (Atlanta: John Knox, 2001), Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 2d ed. (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1957; 3d ed. unaltered, 1967) = The Deuteronomistic History, JSOTS 15 (1981):

9 15 1. He described the DH as a unity composed by a single author who had a definite plan, which is evidenced by the following: a. Deut. 1-3 is not the introduction to the Deuteronomic law but the beginning of the Deuteronomistic historical narrative" which "is selected to supply the needs of the Dtr.'s work. 16 b. The Dtr. showed an express interest in chronology and the relating of events to each other, e.g., 1 Kgs 6:1 and the Exodus. c. He introduced key speeches at key points (Jos 12; 23; 1 Sam 12; 1 Kgs 8:14ff). d. In his selection and presentation of the material the historian allowed the sources to speak for themselves : Dtr. had no intention of fabricating the history of the Israelite people. He wished to present it objectively and base it upon the material to which he had access. Like and honest broker he began by taking, in principle, a favourable view of the material in the traditions. In describing the various historical events he spoke in his own person only at certain exceptional points, letting the old traditions speak for themselves. 17 e. Central theological ideas pointed to the unity of the work. Dtr. did not write his history to provide entertainment in hours of leisure or to satisfy a curiosity about national history, but intended it to teach the true meaning of the history of Israel from the occupation to the destruction of the old order. The meaning which he discovered was that God was recognizably at work in this history, continuously meeting the accelerating moral decline with warnings and punishments and finally, when these proved fruitless 15 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, Noth, The Deuteronimistic History, 84. See also, Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988),

10 with total annihilation. Dtr., then, perceives a just divine retribution in the history of the people, though not so much (as yet) in the fate of the individual. He sees this as the great unifying factor in the course of events, and speaks of it not in general terms but in relation to the countless specific details reported in the extant traditions. Thus Dtr. approached his work with a definite theological conviction. 18 f. The DH is composed of 5 major sections. 19 (1) Section 1: the Dtr provided the original book of Deuteronomy with an introduction (Deut 1-3 belong to DH; 4:1-40 to PHEd) and various epilogues (27, 29-34) which deal with the nature of Israel's relationship to Yahweh, consistently emphasizing a program of one God, one people, one cult. 20 (2) Section 2: Joshua describes the conquest of Canaan, the fulfillment of the covenantal promises and the themes of the Exodus and the Conquest anticipated in Judg 5. (3) Section 3: Judges-1 Sam 7 describe the problems of premonarchic Israel and provide the most evidence of the Dtr's theology. (4) Section 4: 1 Sam 7-1 Kgs 8 records the rise of the monarchy. (5) Section 5: 1 Kgs 9-2 Kgs 23:25 records the decline of the divided monarchy. The Dtr's hand is seen most clearly here in the evaluation of each king. (6) In sections other than 3 and 5 this editor incorporated older material, either in pristine or edited form. 18 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, D. N. Freedman, Deuternomic History, The. IDBSupp (1976): 226b. 10

11 2. Noth s theory presupposed two things. 21 a. The DH part of a larger primary history (PH) which extends from Genesis to 2 Kings and which was completed ca. 550 BC. b. Pentateuchal sources could not be traced beyond Genesis- Numbers. B. But scholars have perceived several problems with this theory. V. SOME OF THE MORE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS: 22 A. Von Rad was not convinced that the same author could have authored Judges and Kings because these two books represent different methodologies. Jones summarizes: Whereas Judges works with a cyclical outline of history, there is complete absence of cycles from Kings; the historian consistently sits in judgment on the kings, but not on the judges; in Judges there is a distinction between the attitude of the people and their judges, but in Kings the people and kings are coupled together in the guilt caused by the kings; history in the period of the kings, was directed by the creative word of God, but in Judges by the charisma of the judges. 23 B. But scholars are divided on this issue.... the cycles in Judges are not the work of the deuteronomistic historian, thus canceling many of the differences. When a closer analysis of historical patterns is undertaken, the ones in Judges and Kings are found to be the same (Trompf, VTS 30 [1979], pp ). Consequently, Nelson (op. cit., p. 14) has not been impressed by von Rad's attempt to dissolve the deuteronomistic historian; he has not been convinced either by Weiser s suggestion (Samuel, pp. 25ff.) that since 21 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, Gerard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper and Row, ): 1:346ff. 23 Gwelyn H. Jones. 1 and 2 Kings, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 1:38. 11

12 the antimonarchical attitude of 1 Samuel is not shared by Deuteronomy or Kings the complex cannot have originated from the same author. 24 C. Scholars are also divided relative to the literary analysis of the work. 1. They assert that Noth s view is far to simple. 25 a. Fohrer has argued that the DH is collection of books composed and produced in different ways, thus rejecting Noth's argument of a unified historical work. b. But Porter has argued that this can be accounted for on the basis of the diverse nature of the material available to the historian Scholars have also seen supposed tensions between the book of Deuteronomy and the DH: 27 a. The tension felt between the amphictyonic and Mosaic traditions of Deuteronomy and the Davidic and Jerusalemite traditions of the Deuteronomistic History. b. The tension between the deuteronomistic aim of presenting a theological interpretation of history and the faithfulness of the deuteronomists in transmitting the material which they had received. c. Inevitably, the acceptance of this latter principle led to the inclusion of some material that did not always accord with the historian s aim and purpose. 24 Jones, Kings, 1: G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: 1970), 194ff; cf. Jones, Kings, 1: J. R. Porter, Old Testament Historiography, in Tradition and Interpretation, G. W. Anderson, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), Jones, Kings, 1:

13 3. Scholars attempts at reconciling these tensions only raised more problems. Noth excised such sections and regarded them as latter additions. But it must be asked whether the bringing out of the dominant theological interpretation in some sections, and the inclusion of some passages that do not contribute to the main theme, point ultimately to the activity of different groups or different editors This raises the question of two or more editors, or two or more redactions D. The single (Noth), double redaction (Richard Nelson), and multiple redaction ( Deuteronomistic Circle ) theories A single redaction: Noth s hypothesis and the problems scholars have found with it have already been noted. 2. A double redaction: two theories a. A pre-exilic and an exilic redaction: (1) There are passages in Kings which presuppose the fall of Jerusalem and the Exile (e.g. 1 Kg. 5:4; 9:1-9; 11:9-13; 2 Kg. 17:19-20; 20:17-18; 21:11-15; 22:15-20; 23:26-27; 24:2-4; 24:18-25:30) Jones, Kings, 1: Cf. Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longmann, III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), Richard D. Nelson. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, JSOTS 18 (1981): R. Smend. Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte. In Probleme Biblischer Theologie, Festschsrift von Rad, pp Edited by H. W. Wolff (Munich, 1971). 32 Many of these passages are interpreted as being post-exilic due to the presupposition that there is no predictive prophecy. Italicized passages are legitimate. The pertinent question is, 13

14 (2) Other passages are totally unaware of the Exile: (a) The use of the formula unto this day would be inappropriate in some passages if the author had been writing at any time after the disaster of 587 BC. (b) Cf. Josh 7:26; 1 Kgs 8:8; 10:12; 12:19; 2 Kgs 8:22; 10:27; 16:6; 17:23; 20:17; 21:15 (3) Again some passages take the continuing existence of the Davidic dynasty for granted, as indeed that of the Jerusalem Temple. (4) Sections which Noth claimed were editorial comments Nelson argues actually belong to an exilic editor. 33 (5) Thus, it has been argued, a pre-exilic, deuteronomistic work dated c. 600 BC was reworked and expanded in the Babylonian exile (so Kuenen, Einleitung I, pp ; see also Nelson, Double Redaction, pp. 14ff., for reference to other forms of the double redaction hypothesis, and cf. Radjawane, Thr 38 [1974], pp ) b. Cross modified the double redaction hypothesis. The first redaction is dated in the reign of Josiah and interpreted as a piece of propaganda for Josiah s policies. Around 560 BC the original work was brought up to date through the insertion of a Why was the passage written? 33 Jones, Kings, 1: Jones, Kings, 1:31. Cf. previous passages to 2 Kgs 25: F. M. Cross, The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge, 1973),

15 number of additions, which changed the theological emphasis of the work as a whole. 36 (1) There seems to be a change in the structure of the history in the last chapters of Kings: (a) (b) The disappearance of sermon or comment on significant historical event (e.g, an absence of a comment on the fall of Judah which is similar to the one offered for the fall of Samaria). A change in the prophecy-fulfillment scheme (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:10-15; 24:2 predicts the punishment of Manasseh without mentioning the prophet's name). (2) The original history should be dated in Josiah's time because Josiah is regarded as the new David (2 Kgs 23:25) and such a view would be inappropriate in exilic times. (3) Different theological perspectives evidenced in the work. (a) (b) (c) The pre-exilic history, written in Josiah s time, exhibits two common themes: the sin of Jeroboam and the promise to David which reached its climax in Josiah. The exilic editor had a different perspective: He saw inevitable punishment for the sins of Manasseh, and...introduces a theological motif that is out of tune with the rest of the history. 37 These differences point to two different editors: preexilic and exilic. 36 Jones, Kings, 1: Jones Kings, 1:34. 15

16 3. The theory of a Deuteronomic School was proposed because the double redaction theory was deemed too simple; it did not account for all the facts. 38 a. Jepsen proposed that the history was the result of gradual growth worked on by several different people. (1) There was no theological motive behind this work. (2) Its only purpose was to contrast the Davidic dynasty with the northern kingdom. (3) The basis for this document was the chronicle of 1 Kgs 2:10-2 Kgs 18:8. (4) Most of this theory has been rejected due to perceived problems in the supposed chronicle. 39 b. Smend refined Jepsen s theory by proposing three layers of deuteronomistic tradition: First of all came the basic historical work (DtrH), then followed a redaction which introduced prophetical texts (DtrP), and finally, law-oriented additions were included (DtrN). It is argued that the three layers were deuteronomistic and that the designation of the final redaction as nomistic does not preclude DtrH and DtrP from being called deuteronomistic. 40 c. This theory succeeds in reconciling the two main methods adopted by previous researchers, the one represented by Noth and the other by Jepsen A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Köingsbücher, Halle, Smend, "Das Gesetz," Jones, Kings, 1: Jones, Kings, 1:44. 16

17 (1) Noth s contention, that the Deuteronomistic History is a unified work, is preserved in the argument that all three versions were basically deuteronomistic. (2) Full recognition is given to the unified ideological outlook and to the working presuppositions of the deuteronomic school. (3) By maintaining that the work is the result of continuous activity by that school, which worked at the basic material and brought out more explicitly certain emphases, we recognize that different redactions were made, without falling into the pitfalls of Jepsen's analysis of those redactions. (4) The concept of continuing activity by a deuteronomic school gives an adequate account of the unity and the diversity of the body of literature. (5) Keep in mind however this is only a synthesis of two theories in an attempt to use the best of differing theories; can truth obtained this way? E. Rendtorff believes that the influence of the Deuteronomistic Circle, or School lies in a wider context This would include many other areas of the Old Testament literature, including the Pentateuch... the prophetic books, psalms and so on. 2. The circle, or school, i.e., the editors were influential at various points and in different ways, even prior to the reign of Josiah. 3. If the report of the discovery of the book of the law and Josiah s reform (II Kings 22f.) in its present form is the work of the Deuteronomist, there is no objection to the assumption that Deuteronomy was known and was influential earlier. 185ff. 42 Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 185; cf. 17

18 4.... the Deuteronomistic writers are to be thought of as having worked in such a way as to shape the individual complexes of tradition and connect them together. 5. Therefore,... the beginning of the book of Joshua marks the beginning of the historical account. A completely new period of the history of Israel begins with the conclusion of the Torah and the death of Moses. To this degree there are good reasons for the separation of the Pentateuch from the following books, which is what happened later. F. Three proposals relative to who the author/editor might have been include: 1. Levitical singers (von Rad) or the Jerusalem priesthood who had some connection with the cult and would be interested in the centralization of that cult. 2. Prophets who would emphasize the connections with Moses and fulfilled prophecy. 3. The wisdom school in Jerusalem who would have access to the material necessary to write such a history. VI. CENTRAL THEOLOGICAL IDEAS. 43 A. Noth outlined the basic theological ideas found in the DH, which are mostly accepted by scholars. 1. The Dtr describes the relationship between God and his people by the term covenant (Deut 7:9, 12; 1 Kgs 8:23). 2. Acceptable worship was in accordance with the Deuteronomic law. 3. Because the author was writing from the perspective of the exile, the temple, the place of the divine presence, is important only for prayers and as a center of judgment. Sacrifices are of little importance. 4. The temple, the place where God s name dwells, was the only acceptable place of worship. 43 Noth, Deuteronomistic History,

19 5. Prior to the erection of the temple God allowed worship at such places as the high places, provided the messenger of God, or God himself was there. 6. The catastrophe of the exile, which the prophets prophesied had come to pass, and clearly therefore there was nothing better to look for in the future. 7. Similarly, there was nothing to look for any better than their present situation, a pessimistic approach. 8. His focus was on the past and the events which led to the present situation only. 9. The history of disobedience which brought on the punishment of the exile will force all peoples to listen to God. 10. The history was the work of an independent author who, writing at the end of history, used the historical traditions to try and answer the "why" of the exile. B. Though scholars have accepted these with modifications, they have also denied that the author of the DH was the pessimist that Noth made him out to be Von Rad argues that the destruction of 587 involved a just divine judgment. a. But this did not mean the DH pictured the end of Israel. b. The exile was to bring about Israel's repentance. c. Jehoiachin's release from prison (2 Kgs 25:27-30) points to the fact of a new hope. d. God can begin anew with the house of David and Israel. 44 von Rad, Theology, 2: ; idem., Studies in Deuteronomy, SBTh 9 (1953): 90ff. 19

20 45 2. Other scholars have carried the thought even further and see a built in tension between judgment and salvation throughout the entire work; though God punishes he also saves. VII. EVALUATION OF THE DH. A. And so the debate continues, new terminology and refinements being added, with no end or agreement in sight. B. Kaiser summarizes the present state of affairs using, while at the same time making use of these new terminologies and refinements: As far as DtrG is concerned, a combination of the stage and strata models [technical descriptive terms attached to the various redaction theories discussed above, rcb] emerges, which requires giving up the idea of a single work extending from Deuteronomy 1 to 2 Kings 25 in favour of a more complicated stage and strata model which needs further working out. Whoever complains that the picture of origin of the work in the end extends from Genesis 1 to 2 Kings 25 is more complicated than was suspected in mid-century should remember that a more nuanced picture also furnishes deeper insight into the history of Israelite faith. Knowledge lives and advances through controversy. It is an astonishing sign of the appropriateness of current vigorous discussion that out of manifold theoretical possibilities of interpreting the textual evidence there are in the end only three or four explanatory models with a serious claim to attention. 46 C. So, the DH theory has proven itself very popular. 1. It offers (at least in its less radical forms) a refreshing alternative to all the source theories usually propounded by critics. 2. It explains convincingly some of the theological concepts expressed in the Old Testament. 3. It provides insights into the Sitz im Leben. 45 Cf. Jones, Kings, 1:79ff. for discussion. 46 O. Kaiser, The Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History, in Text in Context, A. D. H. Mayes, ed. (Oxford: University Press, 2000),

21 4. It requires only slight modifications to be very acceptable even to the most conservative theologians: What if the lawbook found by Hilkiah (2 Kgs 22:8) was really the Book of Deuteronomy and this find had such an effect on the nation that the writing of its history of disobedience (Joshua-2 Kings) was the result? D. But more seems to be wrong with it than right with it. 1. It is very subjective. a. The theory is a very detailed hypothesis that is built around one single event in Israel's history the finding of the law in the time of Josiah. b. Conclusions are made which are based on a priori presuppositions such as the identification of different sources for the work. 2. Scholars cannot agree among themselves about certain primary tenets in the theory: number of redactors, who was the author, etc. 3. Amusingly, scholars moved from Noth's rather conservative position, to that of more radical theories, to some that are nearly vis a vis to the older conservative positions, e.g., various prophets and/or Jeremiah. 47 Part II: The Chronicler VIII. THE EXTENT OF THE CHRONICLER S WORK. A. Two main areas of disagreement: Whether the Chronicler was also responsible for the whole or part of Ezra- Neh. 47 Cf. Leslie C. Allen, The Former Prophets, in Old Testament Survey, William Sanford LaSor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush, eds., 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longmann, III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994),

22 2. Whether there exists secondary material in the books of Chronicles. 49 B. For 150 years some scholars have debated whether or not the books of 50 Chronicles are directly continued in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. This view has four arguments. 1. The nearly exact overlap between the end of Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra (2 Chron 36:22 ff.; Ezra 1:1-3) suggests that this is a literary device which stresses the unity of the two works. 2. Their conflating in 1 Esdras 2:1ff. has been taken as evidence of continuity of authorship. 3. The similarity of style and vocabulary is used to argue for a unity. 4. The theology, outlook and interests between Chronicles and Ezra-Neh are similar. 51 C. Others have argued that the books are to be regarded as separate. They contend: 1. Similarity of theme can be perceived even if there are two or more authors. 2. Conversely, the same author could write two different books and develop divergent themes. D. Yet, for the most part, scholars who perceive Ezra-Neh and Chronicles being written by one author see a unity of theme between the books, while those who see separate authors for the two works have argued for a diversity of theme, etc.! E. Harrison has offered perhaps the best solution in his series hypothesis: Probably the most satisfactory explanation of the situation is that whereas Ezra and Nehemiah supplied the contemporary historical background, Chronicles was 49 H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles. NCB. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles,

23 written to furnish the pre-exilic religious and historical foundation of the theocracy. Together the works comprised a series, and were linked together in the ancient Babylonian manner by means of a catch-line. This latter is the precise function of the concluding two verses of 2 Chronicles, and served both to insure the continuity of the material and to demonstrate that the three works were basically linked in series. 52 IX. UNITY IN THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. A. This question, which is a more serious concern than the Chronicles-Ezra- Nehemiah problem, was addressed in three major periods The 1920s-1930s saw the results of the dominant documentary hypothesis of Pentateuchal origins exercised profound influence on the study of Chronicles a. J. W. Rothstein and J. Haenel argued for a basic narrative which continued the tradition of the P source in the Pentateuch, and they proposed an elaborate series of subsequent redactions, which gradually accommodated Chronicles more closely to the Pentateuch as a whole, including, as of particular importance, Deuteronomy. 56 b. Others argued exactly the opposite. 57 (1) The Chronicler s work was written before the post-exilic restoration and was written by someone who had never been in exile. 52 R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 12ff. 54 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Das erste Buch der Chronik, (Leipzig, 1927). 56 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles,

24 (2) This view sees chs. 1-9 and any passages which betray an influence of P as secondary. The original Chronicler was a reviser who shared the outlook of P. (3) The result was the compilation of a book within a community which still accepted D as its authoritative lawcode. 58 c. G. von Rad represents the most thorough examination of Pentateuchal strands in Chronicles. (1) Von Rad emphasized the importance of Deuteronomy for the Chronicler and yet did not go to the extremes of Welch. (2) The Chronicler based his work on the DH and knew the Pentateuch in its present form rather than documents. (3) Even so there was quite a bit of secondary editing in the work. (4) Von Rad s moderate view still exerts a lot of influence today Noth and Rudolph took basically the same approach to Chronicles that Noth took toward the DH. a. It was essentially the work of one author. b. Even though there were many later additions the work was that of one redaction. c. Both Noth and Rudolph,... find a great deal of secondary material in the first nine chapters, though they retain a basic core of 58 Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (1930). 59 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I (Halle, 1943), Chronikbücher, HAT (Tübingen, 1955). 24

25 this for the Chronicler, a good deal in the account of David's reign, especially 1 Chr and parts of 15-16, and then rather less in the remainder of the work (i.e. 2 Chronicles) Recent scholarship in America tends to link the question of unity with Chronicles with the larger topic of the development of Chronicles-Ezra- Nehemiah. a. This view was first outlined by Freedman (CBQ 23 [1961], ) and developed fully by Cross (JBL 94 [1975], 4-18). b. Cross argues for three separate editions. (1) The latest (Ch 3) is dated ca. 400 BC. and is composed of Chronicles, Ezra and Neh. (2) 1 Esdras and Josephus provide evidence for a Chr 2 ca. 450 BC. (3) The original work (Chr 1) was made up of 1 Chron 10-2 Chron 34 plus the Vorlage of 1 Esd 1:1-5:65 (= 2 Chron 34:1-Ezra 3:13). (4) 1-9 are not part of the earlier additions. 4. Williamson rejects this and returns to what is essentially a conservative position. a.... Chronicles constitutes a substantial unity, including the genealogies of 1 Chr In many cases where secondary additions have formerly been detected, it is found either that the arguments do not stand up to critical examination or that they overlook the demands of the literary structure and theological cohesion of the sections in question. It will often be found that the problem has arisen because the Chronicler has not always cared to harmonize every detail of the sources on which he has drawn." Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles,

26 b. This view also argues that in a few cases in 1 Chron and there are certain passages which point to a secondary expansion, probably by a priestly reviser, and which are based on "internal literary-critical arguments.... [and]... does not represent a return to the first phase of study in this field.... Rather, it seeks to advance in a modest way the approach of Noth and Rudolph. 63 X. DATE, SETTING AND AUTHORSHIP. A. Date. 1. Absolute limits are set on the one the one hand by a reference to `the establishment of the kingdom of Persia' in 2 Chr. 36:20, which precludes a date earlier than 539 BC, and on the other hand by textual attestation of the existence of Chronicles before the middle of the second century BC, namely the citation of LXX of Chronicles by Eupolemos Dates within this 300-year period have been suggested. a. Dates early in the Persian period have been proposed by Welch, Cross, Newsome, etc. 65 b. Late dates have been proposed, all of which are based on the presupposition of Chronicles and Ezra-Neh being originally one book. c. Williamson opts for a date of ca. 350 BC. d. Harrison argues for a date in the closing decades of the 5th century (ca. 400) Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Harrison, Introduction,

27 B. Setting. 1. Little is known about the situation in Judah during this time. 2. We may speculate that the author lived in or near Jerusalem and that he was a supporter of the temple and its service. C. Authorship. 1. Rabbinic authorities attribute the book to Ezra ( wrote the genealogy of Chronicles unto himself [Bab. Bath. 15a]) Chron 36:22ff. indicates that the author/editor could not have been compiled the work before the time of Ezra Chron 3:19-24 contains a list of Zerubbabel's descendants to the 6th generation, which (allowing 20 yrs per generation) would date the books ca. 400 BC. 4. Albright (JBL 40 [1921], ) revived this view and it has been accepted by others, e.g., Myers Dogmatism is difficult to maintain a. While the theory of Ezra as author has much going for it, there are problems which with such a proposal. b. Attempts to identify the Chronicler with Ezra appear inadvisable because of significant differences in style, historical and theological perspective, the treatment of source material, and the basic metaphysic of history as exhibited in the two compositions. 68 XI. SOURCES. 67 J. M. Myers, 1 & 2 Chronicles, AB (Garden City: Doubleday, 1965). 68 Harrison, Introduction,

28 A. The various sources available to the author of Chronicles fall into two main groups Official records, e.g., "The Book of Kings of Judah and Israel" (2 Chron 16:11). 2. Prophetic records, e.g., "The Chronicles of Samuel the Seer" (1 Chron 29:29). 3. Williamson has astutely observed that with the exception 2 Chron 29:29... he always refers to his sources' at precisely the same point in the text as did the Deuteronomic historian before him (e.g., 2 Chron 16:11; 20:34; 25:26), while conversely he does not supply references in passages where they are absent in the earlier history. It is thus evident that in all such cases the Chronicler was dependent on his Vorlage That is, he used the Deuteronomistic History as a source. B. Sources available to the Chronicler. 1. The major source was the Samuel-Kings, but which text of Samuel-Kings? a. Recent study has indicated the text of Samuel/Kings which the Chronicler used (his Vorlage) was not always of the same type as the MT found in our printed Hebrew Bibles. b. The differences between our texts of Samuel/Kings and Chronicles should be ascribed not to the Chronicler's own bias or interests, but to the Hebrew text he was using. 71 c. W. E. Lemke... has concluded that detailed comparisons of the Massoretic texts of Chronicles and Samuel-Kings are methodologically unsound. While this would not exclude the view that, even the Chronicler reproduces material already in his 69 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 2. 28

29 sources, he makes use of it in a particular way, yet it suggests a greater degree of caution in reconstructing a definite ideology for the Chronicler than has often been shown and it may go some way to explain the often noted phenomenon that sometimes the Chronicler appears to reproduce the existing text of Samuel-Kings almost verbatim, while on other occasions he departs considerably from it" Sources available to the Chronicler and the use made of them. a. The Chronicler probably had access to sources lost to us. b. These should not be considered in terms of modern histories. c. When he uses material that parallels Sam-Kgs we must not assume that he is attempting to expound a known text. d.... the major critical tension is not between the original event and its biblical record, but between the earlier tradition in the text of Samuel-Kings and the Chronicler's reshaped composition. 73 e. Clearly he is mentioning this material for his own unique purposes. Quite obviously he [the Chronicler] was writing for those who already knew the contents of Samuel and Kings, and for this reason he retained only as much of that material as was deemed necessary to furnish a proper framework for his philosophy history. Since his concern was to trace Davidic descent, the history of the northern kingdom was not of paramount importance, and accordingly it was omitted almost everything dealing with the private lives of David and Solomon was omitted, including those aspects that would have contributed favorably to the... picture of those rulers presented occasionally in the book of Chronicles. From this it will be obvious that such omissions were the result of source-control, 72 Porter, "Old Testament Historiography," Childs, Introduction,

30 and were not prompted by apologetic considerations, as is so frequently maintained. 74 (1) Even when he omits a story in his selection (as for example Jeroboam's divine election [1 Kgs 11]) he makes explicit reference to it from his sources (the prophecy of Ahijah [2 Chron 9:29]). (2) The sources were used for particular theological purposes. f. Childs offers the following caution: It is probably fair to say that the historical critical problem of the Chronicler's use of sources has not been solved and may never be completely. Nevertheless, such research as Albright's, on the one hand, has performed a valuable service in keeping open the question of the historical value of the Chronicler's separate sources. On the other, research such as that of Willi, Mosis and Ackroyd has done much to illuminate the extent to which the author exerted his freedom over against the canonical sources. In some, although the question of sources has not been fully resolved, the two extreme positions, represented on the left by de Wette [who argued that the writer "reworked, altered, and falsified" his sources] and on the right by Keil [who defended the books against positions such as de Wette's], have not been sustained. 75 C. Perhaps Child s concept of the Chronicler as an interpreter of Israel's history in 76 relation to a body of authoritative scripture provides the greatest insight into the 77 Chronicler and his sources. According to Childs, the Chronicler's method involved the following. 1. Harmonization reading the various sources as a unity. 74 Harrison, Introduction, Childs, Introduction, Childs, Introduction, Childs, Introduction, 648ff. 30

31 a. The effect... is to harmonize the various parts into an inner unity which reconciles differences, resolves tensions, and establishes links between disparate parts. 78 b. For example, the addition of the function of the Levites in the account of the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem (1 Chron 15:1ff), something that was missing in 2 Sam 6. c. This does not reveal an ability to change the text at will. d. Rather His method permitted him great creativity only within certain boundaries which he could justify from the received tradition. It is precisely this tension, indigenous to the Chronicler's method, which explains his oscillation between freedom and constraint Supplementation the concern to supplement the earlier accounts with "the full range of prophetic revelation in an outer harmony." 80 a.... it is a mistaken interpretation to regard an expansion of the Chronicler as only a `natural' embellishment to be explained from general laws of literary accretion and glossing. b. Rather, these expansions reflect a critical, theological process in which the Chronicler supplemented the earlier record with material considered to be normative for Israel Typology a non-historical ordering of material according to patterns of similarity, which makes use of certain key words and phrases. 78 Chils, Introduction, Childs, Introduction, Childs Introduction, Childs, Introduction,

32 a. David s charge to Solomon (1 Chron 22) contains the same phrases used by Moses in his charge to Joshua (Josh 1:9). b. This method is used to draw out elements of ontological continuity within Israel s history Coherence of action and effect retribution... in his use of retribution he attempts to illustrate the continuity in God's economy between human action and its inevitable effect. Far from imposing a strange doctrine upon his material, the Chronicler was attempting to illustrate in specific events an understanding of God's ways with Israel which comprised the heart of the covenant: If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you (II Chron. 15.2). By emphasizing the verifiable consequences of disobedience, the Chronicler simply drew forth the truth of a lesson which history itself had confirmed In summary: 84 a. The Chronicler did not conceive of his own work as prophetic. b. He envisioned his work as a commentary on the writings of the prophets. c. Israel had experienced disaster because it had failed to `believe Yahweh and in his prophets' (II Chron ). d. Therefore, the Chronicler s main concern was to demonstrate the truth of the prophetic word XII. THEMES. A. The people of God. 82 Childs, Introduction, Childs, Introduction, Childs, Introduction,

33 1. Chronicles opens with a genealogy of Israel which traces God's election from Adam to the post-exilic Jerusalem community. Jacob is always called Israel. 2. Describes the reigns of David and Solomon as a united monarchy, and passes over Israel's participation in the division of the kingdom. 3. The division itself did not place either Israel or Judah outside the boundary of Israel; the two groups had been brought back together in the post-exilic period. B. Kingship. 1. The king was God s representative on the earth ( my house, my kingdom, and my throne ). 2. Thus kingship extended into the post-exilic period. 3. Since kingship had been entrusted to the Davidic dynasty, the question is through whom would God manifest that rule. 4. Further,... the Chronicler ascribes to Solomon a far greater role in the establishment of the dynasty than does the Deuteronomic historian, and that this is in line with his portrayal, expressed in various ways, of the reigns of David and Solomon as a simple episode in the history of Israel. 85 C. The temple and worship. 1. Naturally the temple in the post-exilic period would be perceived as of primary importance--it had exclusive authority. 2. The temple is the conclusion of all the older worshipping traditions. 3. The High Priest takes on more of the responsibilities that had been reserved for the king. 85 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles,