I have been informed that in certain circles I am considered hopelessly naive for taking the sources in Chronicles seriously. Any good biblical scholar (it is supposed) knows that the Chronicler made up all his sources. Those sources never existed. Unfortunately that argument does not wash. Consider the following list of sources he Chronicler cites and what they supposedly contained:
The book of Samuel the seer (1 Chronicles 29:29) supposedly contains accounts of David that the Chronicler drew on.
The book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29) supposedly contains accounts of David and Solomon that the Chronicler drew on.
The book of Gad the seer (1 Chronicles 29:29) also supposedly contains accounts of David that the Chronicler drew on.
The prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chronicles 9:29) supposedly contains accounts of Solomon that the Chronicler drew on.
The visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chronicles 9:29, 12:15) supposedly contains accounts of Solomon, Jeroboam and Rehoboam that the Chronicler drew on.
The book of Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chronicles 12:15) supposedly contains accounts of Rehoboam that the Chronicler drew on.
The book of the kings of Israel and Judah (1 Chronicles 9:1; 16:11; 20:34; 24:27; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 33:18; 35:27; 36:8) supposedly contains records of Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Amaziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Josiah, and Jehoiakim that the Chronicler drew on.
The vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz (2 Chronicles 32:32) supposedly contains records of Hezekiah that the Chronicler drew on.
Of course, any real biblical scholar is supposed to know that all of these sources are fictional and none of them actually contains any records of those kings that the Chronicler was supposed to have drawn on. Except the book of the kings of Israel and Judah actually does exist, and does contain records of those kings, and it certainly appears that the Chronicler used it. The same is true for the vision of Isaiah.
So 60% of the time that the Chronicler cites a source, that source exists and has an account that the Chronicler claims to have drawn on, and appears to have actually drawn on. What does that tell us about the accuracy of the Chronicler? Sixty percent is the lowest passing grade; the bottom of the 'D's; but it is still a passing grade.
Look at it another way, though, one-hundred percent of the time when the Chronicler cites a source and that source exists, it has an account that covers more or less what the Chronicler says it does and that the Chronicler seems to have used in his account. With that sort of success rate, I am willing to trust that a source that the Chronicler had access to and claimed existed in his day probably did even though we do not have that source today.
Did the Chronicler shape the narrative his sources gave him to fit his own ends? I think he did, just like modern historians do. Did the Chronicler make some things up? He may have; modern historians sometimes do too. Was the Chronicler 100% accurate? Perhaps not, but neither are all modern historians. The point is not whether biblical authors were accurate, or tendentious, or objective, but whether they had some sense of history. Like a modern historian, the Chronicler used preexisting sources to tell the story that he was interested in and cited his sources.
I think it funny that some source critics will look everywhere for sources but will only accept as genuine the ones that they make up themselves.
Showing posts with label 2 Chronicles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2 Chronicles. Show all posts
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Ahaz's Altar
The apostasy of Ahaz has already been mentioned. One aspect that I neglected to cover was his altar.
When Ahaz was in the process of selling out to the Assyrians, he made a trip to Damascus to meet with Tiglath-Pileser III:
God let Ahaz have his way but even so no one would consider Ahaz righteous.
When Ahaz was in the process of selling out to the Assyrians, he made a trip to Damascus to meet with Tiglath-Pileser III:
10 And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and saw an altar that was at Damascus: and king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof.The previous altar was a crude thing, the stones were unpolished (Exodus 20:25), but it had been in the service of the Lord for a long time and had served well. Ahaz apparently wanted it to follow more in the fashion of the world rather than be distinctively Israelite. He wanted a trendy and polished altar, even if he had to pollute it to get his way.
11 And Urijah the priest built an altar according to all that king Ahaz had sent from Damascus: so Urijah the priest made it against king Ahaz came from Damascus.
12 And when the king was come from Damascus, the king saw the altar: and the king approached to the altar, and offered thereon.
13 And he burnt his burnt offering and his meat offering, and poured his drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of his peace offerings, upon the altar.
(2 Kings 16:10–13, KJV)
God let Ahaz have his way but even so no one would consider Ahaz righteous.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Alternate Theories
Almost any historical occurrence can be explained in multiple ways. For example, consider the results of any recent election and the variety of explanations of what caused the election and what it means. Sometimes more than one factor is a work. For ancient history, the amount of information we have is less and the variety of theories that can explain the available information increases. In such a case, a flimsy theory that has no rivals shows a lack of imagination on the part of scholars.
During the reign of Josiah, he renovated the temple (2 Chronicles 34:8-13). During the course of the renovation, workers discovered a scroll of the law of the Lord written by Moses (2 Chronicles 34:14).
Scholars have often equated the scroll with the book of Deuteronomy. To them the philosophy of history in Deuteronomy is similar to that found in Kings, whose history extends to the early part of the Babylonian exile. They therefore conclude that Deuteronomy was written about the same time as Kings, which must be about the time of the exile. Therefore, the scroll that Josiah discovered must be that of Deuteronomy which was written (forged) at the same time.
On the other hand, the philosophy of history in Deuteronomy is also similar to that of the Hittites who disappeared at the time contemporary with the traditional date of Moses. If Deuteronomy was written early, then the rest of the case collapses.
One alternate theory to explain what the discovery of the scroll is to remember that it takes only one generation for a tradition to be lost. As Jeffery R. Holland has pointed out, the Church is only one generation away from apostasy. Manasseh and Amon (Josiah's grandfather and father) were not righteous. There is no reason to think that they paid any attention to the law of Moses or encouraged its study or application. They are an example of a generation that neglected the scriptures. Their example probably spread down the line. Josiah had no positive example and need not have had any knowledge of the written law or any knowledge that the law was written before the discovery of the scroll. Written texts were comparatively rare, and knowledge of them seems to have been comparatively restricted in ancient Judah. So the scroll could have contained the Torah, as has been traditionally assumed, and this is at least as plausible an explanation as the current scholarly fad on the subject.
There are other possibilities that might equally explain the evidence. There is no reason to posit that the scroll was only Deuteronomy or that Deuteronomy was forged at that time. We are limited only by the evidence and our imagination.
During the reign of Josiah, he renovated the temple (2 Chronicles 34:8-13). During the course of the renovation, workers discovered a scroll of the law of the Lord written by Moses (2 Chronicles 34:14).
Scholars have often equated the scroll with the book of Deuteronomy. To them the philosophy of history in Deuteronomy is similar to that found in Kings, whose history extends to the early part of the Babylonian exile. They therefore conclude that Deuteronomy was written about the same time as Kings, which must be about the time of the exile. Therefore, the scroll that Josiah discovered must be that of Deuteronomy which was written (forged) at the same time.
On the other hand, the philosophy of history in Deuteronomy is also similar to that of the Hittites who disappeared at the time contemporary with the traditional date of Moses. If Deuteronomy was written early, then the rest of the case collapses.
One alternate theory to explain what the discovery of the scroll is to remember that it takes only one generation for a tradition to be lost. As Jeffery R. Holland has pointed out, the Church is only one generation away from apostasy. Manasseh and Amon (Josiah's grandfather and father) were not righteous. There is no reason to think that they paid any attention to the law of Moses or encouraged its study or application. They are an example of a generation that neglected the scriptures. Their example probably spread down the line. Josiah had no positive example and need not have had any knowledge of the written law or any knowledge that the law was written before the discovery of the scroll. Written texts were comparatively rare, and knowledge of them seems to have been comparatively restricted in ancient Judah. So the scroll could have contained the Torah, as has been traditionally assumed, and this is at least as plausible an explanation as the current scholarly fad on the subject.
There are other possibilities that might equally explain the evidence. There is no reason to posit that the scroll was only Deuteronomy or that Deuteronomy was forged at that time. We are limited only by the evidence and our imagination.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Bishops in Chronicles
The English word bishop derives from Greek ἐπίσκοπος which means overseer. The Greek term is so associated with the Christian office of bishop that it is sometimes difficult to remember that the term was used outside of Christianity. Such is the case in Chronicles as it discusses Josiah's repairs to the temple:
Note also that the overseers/bishops oversaw men who were faithful doing their work, and that there were a large number of people working. Only four overseers are needed for more than that many types of workers. Faithful worker need little oversight. The multiplication of overseers may mean a lack of faithfulness in the work. What does one make of an overseer with no one to oversee?
And the men were faithful over their work, and over them were the bishops Jeth and Abdiah, the Levites of the sons of Merari, and Zachariah and Meshullam of the sons of Kohath, to oversee (lit. to bishop) (2 Chronicles 34:12 LXX).The Hebrew term translated as ἐπίσκοπος is mupqādîm, a hophal participle meaning one who has been appointed over. This is largely what a bishop is. Someone from the priesthood appointed to oversee the holy work for a period of time. The early Christian usage followed that of the Septuagint. Only later, after some time, did it come to mean something else.
Note also that the overseers/bishops oversaw men who were faithful doing their work, and that there were a large number of people working. Only four overseers are needed for more than that many types of workers. Faithful worker need little oversight. The multiplication of overseers may mean a lack of faithfulness in the work. What does one make of an overseer with no one to oversee?
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Another Apostasy in Chronicles
To anyone familiar with the history of the kingdom of Judah, it is not much of a surprise that Manasseh
So being like everyone else is, in the Chronicler's eyes, apostasy.
did evil in the sight of the Lord from all the abominations of the nations which the Lord had exterminated before the face of the children of Israel (2 Chronicles 33:2 LXX).Hezekiah had set an example of what to do and the Chronicler said that he did the "truth" (2 Chronicles 32:1). Manasseh set off in a new direction. Specifically he wanted to imitate the nations around him. He seems to have thought that if he just kept in the middle of the nations round about him neither excelling nor doing much worse, that he would be doing well. The Chronicler ends his discussion of Manasseh's reign by talking about
all his sins and his apostasies (2 Chronicles 33:19 LXX).The plural form of the word here is unusual since one usually sees the singular in Greek. The Hebrew has the singular and uses the term ma`al signaling treachery or covert betrayal.
So being like everyone else is, in the Chronicler's eyes, apostasy.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Apostles in Chronicles
Some passages illustrate word usage very nicely. The Septuagint version of the end of 2 Chronicles has one such passage:
This is the sense used in the New Testament of ἀπόστολος (apostle) as an ambassador. In the New Testament and even today an apostle of Jesus Christ is a personal ambassador of Jesus Christ with the power and authority to say and do what Jesus would say or do in the same circumstance and to have those pronouncements binding in heaven and earth.
Chronicles uses the term as a generic term and in this case for a hostile force. Sennacherib's ambassadors argued that all other nations had succumbed to overwhelming Assyrian superiority and that Hezekiah should just succumb to the obvious and irresistible flow of events. As it turned out, Hezekiah was true to his people and did not surrender to the world's demands even though almost all other nations had. Hezekiah was faithful. A hundred years later the Neo-Assyrian empire would be only a memory. Sic transit gloria mundi.
And after those things Sennacherib, king of the Assyrians, sent (ἀπέστειλεν) his servants against Jerusalem, and he himself and all his army was attacking Lachish, and he sent (ἀπέστειλεν) to Hezekiah, king of Judah, and all of Judea which was in Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 32:9).Sennacherib sent emissaries to Jerusalem with full authority to take action on his behalf. They were there to negotiate terms of Hezekiah's surrender to the Assyrians. Whatever terms they agreed to would be effective and accepted by Sennacherib. This passage thus provides a nice illustration of the use of the Greek verb ἀποστέλλω in the sense of to send an ambassador.
This is the sense used in the New Testament of ἀπόστολος (apostle) as an ambassador. In the New Testament and even today an apostle of Jesus Christ is a personal ambassador of Jesus Christ with the power and authority to say and do what Jesus would say or do in the same circumstance and to have those pronouncements binding in heaven and earth.
Chronicles uses the term as a generic term and in this case for a hostile force. Sennacherib's ambassadors argued that all other nations had succumbed to overwhelming Assyrian superiority and that Hezekiah should just succumb to the obvious and irresistible flow of events. As it turned out, Hezekiah was true to his people and did not surrender to the world's demands even though almost all other nations had. Hezekiah was faithful. A hundred years later the Neo-Assyrian empire would be only a memory. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Oh Say, What is Truth?
The thirty-second chapter of 2 Chronicles begins with an odd statement:
The Chronicler has just spent two chapters describing the Passover celebration of Hezekiah and his organization of tithes, offerings, and priests. Is this what constitutes truth for the Chronicler: proper observance of the rituals and correct ordering of affairs to serve God.
We may actually have something of a mistranslation here, although it is an instructive one. The Hebrew term translated as truth is 'emet. Now 'emet can mean truth, but here and elsewhere it probably means faithfulness.[1] This underscores a point that has been made by several commentators, that for Hebrew speakers, truth and faithfulness were the same thing and that truth did not mean the same thing for Hebrew speakers as it did for Greek speakers.
So for the Chronicler, writing in Hebrew, it was after the faithfulness of the people in the time of Hezekiah that Sennacherib came and tested them by besieging them. Beleaguered, shut behind walls, kept from their work, with insults hurled at them by their foes, the people were able to show the Lord their faithfulness. They were thus true, though not in the Greek sense.
Sometimes things and people can be true in both the Hebrew and the Greek sense, but sometimes one has to chose whether to be true in the Hebrew or the Greek sense.
And after these things and this truth (ἀλήθειαν) came Sennacherib, king of the Assyrians, and he came against Judah. (2 Chronicles 31:1)This is an odd statement to make. Any Greek reader would be struck by the strange turn of phrase. It is not the kind of thing that would appear in a Greek historical narrative.
The Chronicler has just spent two chapters describing the Passover celebration of Hezekiah and his organization of tithes, offerings, and priests. Is this what constitutes truth for the Chronicler: proper observance of the rituals and correct ordering of affairs to serve God.
We may actually have something of a mistranslation here, although it is an instructive one. The Hebrew term translated as truth is 'emet. Now 'emet can mean truth, but here and elsewhere it probably means faithfulness.[1] This underscores a point that has been made by several commentators, that for Hebrew speakers, truth and faithfulness were the same thing and that truth did not mean the same thing for Hebrew speakers as it did for Greek speakers.
So for the Chronicler, writing in Hebrew, it was after the faithfulness of the people in the time of Hezekiah that Sennacherib came and tested them by besieging them. Beleaguered, shut behind walls, kept from their work, with insults hurled at them by their foes, the people were able to show the Lord their faithfulness. They were thus true, though not in the Greek sense.
Sometimes things and people can be true in both the Hebrew and the Greek sense, but sometimes one has to chose whether to be true in the Hebrew or the Greek sense.
[1] HALOT
1:68-69. Note that the editors say that it is difficult sometimes to
distinguish between meanings of truth and faithfulness.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
A Passover Connection
One never knows where one might find insight into a scripture. Sometimes it is simply a matter of making an odd connection.
This connection deals with a side note on something I wrote about a a few years ago on the various versions of Leviticus 1-5. (Sorry, the pdf or print version will be necessary to follow the philological arguments.)
In the Septuagint version of the Chronicles account of the passover feast of Hezekiah it mentions more than once the peace offerings that were made (2 Chronicles 29:35; 30:22). Specifically it says:
This connection deals with a side note on something I wrote about a a few years ago on the various versions of Leviticus 1-5. (Sorry, the pdf or print version will be necessary to follow the philological arguments.)
In the Septuagint version of the Chronicles account of the passover feast of Hezekiah it mentions more than once the peace offerings that were made (2 Chronicles 29:35; 30:22). Specifically it says:
And Hezekiah spoke to every heart of the Levites and of those who had a good understanding of the Lord, and they finished the feast of unleavened bread, seven days of offering "peace offerings" and confessing to the Lord God of their fathers (2 Chronicles 30:22 LXX).The peace offerings, of course, are detailed in Leviticus 3. Two details strike me as significant in this passage.
- The first is that the major offering of Passover was the so-called peace offering.
- The second is that the Septuagint does not call it the "peace offering." That is the translation the King James Version uses for the Hebrew of this term. The Septuagint calls it the θυσία σωτηρίου "the offering of salvation."
Sunday, December 2, 2012
More Apostasy in Chronicles
While 2 Chronicles 21 uses the term apostasy in a political or military sense, it later uses the term in a religious sense. The Septuagint for 2 Chronicles 28:19 says that:
It took a different king, Hezekiah, to set things right again and to rededicate the offerings back to their original purpose. Apostasy requires a restoration.
Because the Lord humbled Judah because of Ahaz, the king of Judah, since he completely apostatized (ἀπέστη ἀποστάσει) from the Lord.In his afflictions he continued to apostatized against the Lord (2 Chronicles 28:22). In the next chapter, it refers back to
all the implements which Ahaz the king polluted in his reign and in his apostasy (2 Chronicles 29:19)The Septuagint is translating a different term as apostasy in this passage.The Hebrew term is ma`al, which means to act unfaithfully or to act treacherously. Thus Ahaz, even though he is the king, is a traitor to his God and acting treacherously against God. The temple implements were given by the funds of individuals and dedicated to the Lord for holy purposes. Ahaz, however, decided to put them to purposes other than those originally intended by those who donated them. He also abandoned the worship of the Lord to attempt to curry favor with other worldly powers (2 Chronicles 28:22-25). As a result, the Lord delivered him to his enemies.
It took a different king, Hezekiah, to set things right again and to rededicate the offerings back to their original purpose. Apostasy requires a restoration.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Coup and Counter-coup
In ancient Israel the Davidic dynasty lasted about four hundred years from the reign of David to the reign of Zedekiah with only one interruption. That interruption occurred about halfway through the dynasty and proves somewhat instructive.
Jehu, putting an end to Jehoram in the north, encountered an extra guest, Jehoram's nephew Ahaziah the king of Judah, and killed him as well (2 Chronicles 22:7-9). When Athaliah, Ahaziah's mother, found out about this, she killed all the other heirs to the throne and seized it for herself (2 Chronicles 22:10). Given that Athaliah's mother was the famous Jezebel, these actions do not come as much of a surprise. Athaliah actually missed one of the heirs, a mere toddler (2 Chronicles 22:11-12).
Athaliah's coup began a six year interregnum (2 Chronicles 22:12), and one of the only times that a woman reigned over the kingdom of Judah.
Then the high priest, Jehoiada, does a very brave thing. He organized his people and guarding the temple, anointed the heir Joash to be king in the courtyard of the temple (2 Chronicles 23:1-12). With this public announcement of an heir, the public came flocking to the temple to acclaim the new king (2 Chronicles 12:12). One suspects that they were not altogether happy with Athaliah's rule. Athaliah heard something afoot and came to see what is the commotion. Upon entering the temple and seeing what was happening, she shrieked: "Treason! Treason!" (2 Chronicles 23:13), which, of course, it was as were her actions six years previously.
Jehoiada orders her to be dragged out of the temple and then put to death (2 Chronicles 23:14-15). From the standpoint of the Davidic line, justice was served. In this life, justice usually does not come so cleanly or neatly even when the counter-coup sets things more or less right. Sometimes it takes a counter-coup or the intervention of ecclesiastical authorities to set things right. Often, however, we forget about the innocents massacred at the hands of usurpers, or the innocents who must toil in servitude to corrupt regimes.
Jehu, putting an end to Jehoram in the north, encountered an extra guest, Jehoram's nephew Ahaziah the king of Judah, and killed him as well (2 Chronicles 22:7-9). When Athaliah, Ahaziah's mother, found out about this, she killed all the other heirs to the throne and seized it for herself (2 Chronicles 22:10). Given that Athaliah's mother was the famous Jezebel, these actions do not come as much of a surprise. Athaliah actually missed one of the heirs, a mere toddler (2 Chronicles 22:11-12).
Athaliah's coup began a six year interregnum (2 Chronicles 22:12), and one of the only times that a woman reigned over the kingdom of Judah.
Then the high priest, Jehoiada, does a very brave thing. He organized his people and guarding the temple, anointed the heir Joash to be king in the courtyard of the temple (2 Chronicles 23:1-12). With this public announcement of an heir, the public came flocking to the temple to acclaim the new king (2 Chronicles 12:12). One suspects that they were not altogether happy with Athaliah's rule. Athaliah heard something afoot and came to see what is the commotion. Upon entering the temple and seeing what was happening, she shrieked: "Treason! Treason!" (2 Chronicles 23:13), which, of course, it was as were her actions six years previously.
Jehoiada orders her to be dragged out of the temple and then put to death (2 Chronicles 23:14-15). From the standpoint of the Davidic line, justice was served. In this life, justice usually does not come so cleanly or neatly even when the counter-coup sets things more or less right. Sometimes it takes a counter-coup or the intervention of ecclesiastical authorities to set things right. Often, however, we forget about the innocents massacred at the hands of usurpers, or the innocents who must toil in servitude to corrupt regimes.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Apostasy in Chronicles
Some people have a tendency to minimize apostasy. This can be seen, for example, in the King James translators' choice of words in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 where Greek ἀποστασία is translated as "a falling away." While it is certainly possible to dwindle in unbelief and go slowly, surely, incrementally, and inevitably to hell, one can also do so dramatically, drastically, and definitively.
A good gauge for what the term would have mean to Paul and his converts from Judaism can be found in the Septuagint version of 2 Chronicles 21. The Septuagint was the Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. For most Mediterranean Jews of Jesus's day, the Septuagint was the holy scriptures. In Chronicles it reads that "In these days Edom apostatized (ἀπέστη) from Judah" (2 Chronicles 21:8). Here it is clear that Edom did not just "fall away;" Edom revolted or rebelled and declared its independence. The Hebrew verb used here, pāšaꜥ, simply means to rebel. Thus "Edom apostatized from/rebelled against Judah until that day" (2 Chronicles 21:10).
Apostasy is thus an open rebellion, a revolt, a mutiny. While we use the English term in a religious context, the Greek term originally had a military or political context.
Edom doubtlessly depicted their actions as merely a reorganization and reorientation that would align their territory among the nations in a way that would better serve its goals, as a new beginning and new direction for Edom, but the Chronicler was more blunt: Edom was in apostasy.
A good gauge for what the term would have mean to Paul and his converts from Judaism can be found in the Septuagint version of 2 Chronicles 21. The Septuagint was the Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. For most Mediterranean Jews of Jesus's day, the Septuagint was the holy scriptures. In Chronicles it reads that "In these days Edom apostatized (ἀπέστη) from Judah" (2 Chronicles 21:8). Here it is clear that Edom did not just "fall away;" Edom revolted or rebelled and declared its independence. The Hebrew verb used here, pāšaꜥ, simply means to rebel. Thus "Edom apostatized from/rebelled against Judah until that day" (2 Chronicles 21:10).
Apostasy is thus an open rebellion, a revolt, a mutiny. While we use the English term in a religious context, the Greek term originally had a military or political context.
Edom doubtlessly depicted their actions as merely a reorganization and reorientation that would align their territory among the nations in a way that would better serve its goals, as a new beginning and new direction for Edom, but the Chronicler was more blunt: Edom was in apostasy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)