Historical Books: 1 Chronicles–2 Maccabees
- Historical Books1 Chronicles–2 Maccabees
________
The Chronicler uses the Hebrew words for “heart” (lb/lbb) to illustrate the measure of a king’s faithfulness toward the temple. In the Books of Samuel, Yhwh chooses David as king because Yhwh “looks on the heart” (1 Sam 16:7). The Samuel narrative, however, never later states how David acted with his heart in any pious way, although his heart does desire to build the temple (2 Sam 7:3; 1 Kgs 8:17, 18; see also 3:6; 9:4). The Chronicler, on the other hand, recounts that David offered much of his own wealth for the temple project “in the uprightness of his own heart” (1 Chr 29:17). He likewise encouraged Solomon and the people to have hearts to finish what he had started (vv. 18–19). In the divided monarchy, the Chronicler inserts “heart” expressions frequently to show how later kings either did or did not follow David’s faithful behavior. Fifty-four of sixty-three occurrences of the words lb/lbb in Chronicles have no parallel in Samuel–Kings, making it still more prominent than any of the Chronicler’s other paradigmatic vocabulary. [Adapted from published abstract—W.J.U.]
The call to read Chronicles “midrashically” in Lev. Rab. 1.3 and Ruth Rab. 2.1 challenges the contemporary understanding of how intertextuality functions in the early Rabbis’ interpretation of Scripture. David Stern, James Kugel, and others claim that the sages considered each word of the Bible to be of equal status, regardless of who wrote it or when. The Rabbis’ insistence, however, that Chronicles receive special treatment contradicts this assertion. F.’s article argues that Chronicles’ late date of composition had a dual effect. On the one hand, Chronicles’ lateness reduced its authority and led the Rabbis to give greater weight to the words of the Primary History in their intertextual readings. On the other hand, Chronicles’ retelling of the past provided a biblical warrant for the Rabbis’ own reshaping of tradition. [Adapted from published abstract—J.M.H.] [End Page 151]
With regard to the question of his title, J. responds as follows: This study has shown that—with a fair amount of confidence—one can at least posit a relationship between the late phases of formation of Judges, which most probably coincided with the formational phases of Chronicles; or, at the very least, reflect a similar intellectual context of finalization for the former book and of origin for the latter. This study thus confirms, to a certain degree, the surmise that Chronicles can be a valuable resource for scholars of other textual corpora in the Hebrew Bible. Not only can pentateuchal scholars gain insight about the finalization of the Torah in the postexilic Persian period by studying Chronicles, but scholars of the so-called Deuteronomistic History (Dtr) can also benefit from comparing that corpus with Chronicles when developing theories about the formation-history of Dtr. [Adapted from author’s conclusion, p. 197—C.T.B.]
According to W. Rudolph, what differentiates the Chronicler’s thinking from the conceptions of the prophets regarding God’s sovereignty is the virtually total absence of an eschatological expectation in the former’s work. H. G. Williamson, by contrast, has sought to show that for the Chronicler God has continued to be faithful throughout history to his promises concerning the line of David. Against this background, L.’s article asks what the Chronicler thought regarding the relevance of this promise to the future history that was opening up for the Jewish community of his time after the Maccabean wars...
