The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (JSOT Supplement Series)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 197 Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive...

Author: William M. Schniedewind

172 downloads 1090 Views 13MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

197

Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor John Jarick Editorial Board Robert P. Carroll, Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

The Word of God in Transition

From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period

William M. Schniedewind

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 197

Copyright © 1995 Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19 Kingfield Road Sheffield, S11 9AS England

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press and Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Midsomer Norton, Somerset

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-85075-550-7

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments Abbreviations Introduction

7 8 11

Chapter 1

PROPHETIC TITLES AND INSPIRATION FORMULAS Prophetic Titles Inspiration Formulas

31 32 54

Chapter 2

PROPHETIC SPEECHES Prophets and Messengers Speakers with Prophetic Titles Inspired Messengers

80 81 84 108

Chapter 3 THE 'WORD OF GOD' IN TRADITION

The Resignification of , 'the Word of YHWH' Reinterpreting Prophecies from Samuel-Kings The Dynastic Oracle Tradition, Transition and Context

130 130 138 143 161

Chapter 4

DIVINE INSPIRATION AND THE LEVITICAL SINGERS Excursus: The Redaction of 1 Chronicles 23-27 Music and Prophecy The Levitical 'Singers'

163 165 170 174

Chapter 5

PROPHECY AND KINGSHIP David, 'the Man of God'

189 193

6

The Word of God in Transition Divine Revelation to David David, Cult Founder and Temple Builder

198 207

Chapter 6 THE PROPHETS AS HISTORIANS Source References Prophets in the Chronicler's Narrative

209 211 228

Conclusion FROM PROPHETS TO INSPIRED INTERPRETERS Prophets and Inspired Messengers The History of Prophecy Prophecy in Early Judaism and Christianity The Date, Authorship and Purpose of Chronicles

231 231 238 241 249

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

253 260 273

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The present study is a revised version of a doctoral dissertation completed at Brandeis University in March 1992, 'Prophets, Prophecy, and Inspiration: A Study of Prophecy in the Book of Chronicles'. This study owes much to my teachers there: Michael Fishbane, Marc Brettler, Tzvi Abusch, Stephen Geller, and Krister Stendahl. I wish also to acknowledge the advice and help of Hugh Williamson, Sara Japhet and J. Edward Wright, whom I consulted at various stages on aspects of the dissertation. Although I have tried carefully to recognize their work on the pages of this monograph, their contribution goes beyond that which footnotes can acknowledge. I owe special thanks to Marc Brettler whose rigor as a scholar and dedication as a teacher I hope to emulate. My debt to Michael Fishbane cannot be expressed in words; this study is a tribute to him and a beginning in the adventure upon which he has started me. The present study was revised during 1992-93 while I was a postdoctoral fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem. The Albright Institute and the Ecole Biblique et Arch6ologique Fran9aise provided me with the ideal environment in which to research, study and write. During my study at the Albright, Marvin Sweeney was kind enough to read over the manuscript and offer suggestions and encouragement. In the end, though I have profited through the work, advice and encouragement of many others I am solely responsible for the ideas expressed herein. My greatest joy through this entire work has been my lovely wife Jeanne who has given more than any in endless evenings with her husband at the computer. I can scarcely repay the debt owed. William M. Schniedewind Jerusalem, Christmas 1993

ABBREVIATIONS

AB AJSLL AnBib ANET AOAT BASOR BDB BET BHS Bib BJS BL BN BTB BZ BZAW CBQMS CTA

CTM DJD El EncJud ETL FOTL GKC HAR HAT HSM HTR HUCA IB IBS

Anchor Bible American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Analecta biblica J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Alter Orient und Altes Testament Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblica Brown Judaic Studies H. Bauer and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der Hebrdischen Sprache des Alten Testaments (Hildesheim: Olms, 1965) Biblische Notizen Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZAW Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series A. Herdner (ed.), Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabetiques découvertes a Ràs Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 a 1939 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuther, 1963) Concordia Theological Monthly Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Eretz Israel Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971) Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses The Forms of the Old Testament Literature Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A.E. Cowley Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch zum Alten Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Interpreter's Bible Irish Biblical Studies

Abbreviations ICC IEJ Int JAOS JBL JJS JNES JQR JR JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KAI KB3 LCL NCB Or OTL OTS RB RTF SBLDS SBLMS SBLSBS SBLSP SET SJOT SJT TDNT TDOT TynBul TZ VT VTSup WBC WMANT WTJ ZA W

International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und aramdische Inschriften L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner (eds.), Hebrdisches und aramdisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3rd edn Loeb Classical Library New Century Bible Orientalia Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studien Revue biblique Revue de theologie et de philosophie SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series SBL Sources for Biblical Study SBL Seminar Papers Studies in Biblical Theology Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scottish Journal of Theology G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

9


INTRODUCTION

There is no longer any prophet... (Ps. 74.9)

The phrase 'the word of God' conjures up various images, from the fiery words of the classical prophets and Moses receiving the Law on Mount Sinai to a modern preacher waving a large black King James Bible. These diverse images can be understood by examining the momentous change which took place in the meaning of the term 'word of God' after the exile of the people of Israel to Babylon in 586 BCE. Post-exilic biblical literature, and the book of Chronicles in particular, reflects a transition in the meaning of the 'word of God'. In the classical prophetic literature, the 'word of God' comes to the prophet. In the prophetic literature, the pathos of the prophet who receives God's word is striking. The 'word of God' in the pre-exilic literature is truly 'living and active'. It comes directly from God to the prophet who in turn speaks to the people. After the exile, the 'word of God' becomes the received traditions—Scripture—which an inspired interpreter makes alive for the people. Thus, inspired scribes like Ezra or Baruch and inspired teachers like Jesus of Nazareth or the Teacher of Righteousness reveal the mysteries of the 'word of God'. They no longer simply receive the 'word of God', rather they interpret the 'word of God'. In them a new kind of prophet emerges, the inspired text interpreter. This study examines the emergence of this new kind of prophet, the inspired messenger, in the post-exilic period, and it takes its starting point as prophecy in the book of Chronicles. The book of Chronicles is a post-exilic work which concerns the pre-exilic period. As such, it provides us with a unique opportunity to see the ideas of a post-exilic writer concerning the pre-exilic period. What interests us particularly is the Chronicler's presentation of pre-exilic prophecy and prophets. Herein emerges a picture of the inspired text interpreter set against the portrait of the classical prophets.1 1.

The book of Chronicles, although included in the Greek canon among the

12


1. Post-Exilic Prophecy Although prophecy has been a topic of intense interest in biblical studies, post-exilic prophecy has suffered from some neglect. This may be traced to Julius Wellhausen's influential Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels.2 Wellhausen not only viewed the monarchy as the classical period of Israel, but also saw classical prophecy as the apex of Israelite religion. Post-exilic Judaism then was 'an artificial product'3 and post-exilic prophecy only a shadowy reflection of its illustrious predecessor. Wellhausen based this harsh evaluation of post-exilic Judaism on his analysis of Chronicles. He writes in summation: 'Chronicles owes its origin, not to the arbitrary caprice of an individual, but to a general tendency of its period'.4 As a result, the post-exilic period in general and post-exilic prophecy in particular has been neglected in scholarship until quite recently.5 However, little work has been done on prophecy in 'historical books', belongs more properly with the 'Writings' as it is in the Hebrew canon. The purpose of the Chronicler was not to write a history of Israel but rather to exhort the post-exilic community to seek the LORD and to support the temple. The genre of Chronicles is more that of a 'historical sermon' than 'history writing'. See my paper, 'History or Homily: Toward Understanding the Chronicler's Purpose', in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies 1993 (1994). Also see C. Begg, '"Seeking Yahweh" and the Purpose of Chronicles', Louvain Studies 9 (1982), pp. 128-41; R. Braun, 'The Message of Chronicles: Rally 'Round the Temple', C7M42 (1971), pp. 502-14. 2. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin, 1883) was originally published as the first volume of Wellhausen's Geschichte Israels (Berlin, 1878). The Prolegomena was translated as Prolegomena to the History of Israel (repr.; New York: Meridan, 1957). For a survey of Wellhausen's influence, see D. Knight (ed.), Julius Wellhausen and his Prolegomena to the History of Israel, Semeia 25 (1983), esp. pp. 75-82; R. Rendtorff, The Image of Postexilic Israel in German Bible Scholarship from Wellhausen to von Rad', in M. Fishbane, E. Tov and W. Fields (eds.), 'Sha 'arei Talmon': Studies in Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), pp. 16573. 3. Prolegomena to the History of Israel, p. 421. 4. Prolegomena to the History of Israel, p. 224. 5. John Barton stresses the importance of later perceptions of ancient prophecy: 'much that did pass as "prophecy" in the post-exilic age corresponded not to prophecy as it had been in earlier time, but to prophecy as it was (falsely) imagined to have been' (Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile [New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986], p. 269).

Introduction

13

Chronicles and its place in the history of prophecy. This study thus takes up aspects of continuity and distinction in post-exilic prophecy in general and prophecy in the books of Chronicles in particular. We begin this study of post-exilic prophecy with a clarification of some terms. 'Prophecy' is not a self-referential term in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, the term 'prophecy' (nwn]) itself occurs only three times in biblical literature (Neh. 6.12; 2 Chron. 9.29; 15.8). The paucity of this term in the Hebrew Bible must warn us against imposing definitions of prophecy foreign to the biblical text. Helmer Ringgren provides a definition which can illustrate the problem: 'Prophecy may tentatively be defined as the proclamation of divine messages in a state of inspiration'.6 It is easy to agree with the first part of Ringgren's definition, namely, 'prophecy is the proclamation of divine messages'. As Ringgren points out, the messenger formula ('thus says YHWH') makes a direct claim that the prophet proclaims YHWH's message. It is difficult, however, to accept the second part of this definition, namely that the messages are proclaimed 'in a state of inspiration'. Indeed, there are few places in the Hebrew Bible where we can point to prophets in a state of inspiration. Sigmund Mowinckel pointed this out decades ago in a classic study: 'the pre-exilic reforming prophets never in reality express a consciousness that their prophetic endowment and powers are due to the possession by or any action of the spirit of Yahweh, riiah yahweh'.1 The biblical authors do not associate classical prophecy (for example, that of Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos) with 'a state of inspiration' . Rather, classical biblical prophecy only makes the claim of divine authority in the proclamation of messages.8 The term 'inspiration' implies an author's perception that an activity is divinely influenced. This perception is usually indicated by the use of a term like 'spirit', although other terms like 'the hand of YHWH' also 6. H. Ringgren, 'Prophecy in the Ancient Near East', in R. Coggins, A. Phillips and M. Knibb (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honor of Peter Ackroyd (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 1. Cf. David Aune's definition, 'intelligible messages from God in human language through inspired human mediums' (Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983], p. 103). 7. ' "The Spirit" and the "Word" in the Pre-Exilic Reforming Prophets', JBL 53 (1934), p. 199. 8. This definition of prophecy is not concerned with the truth of the claim. Even in the Hebrew Bible, 'false' prophets prophesy (VtO3). Cf. Deut. 18.20-22; 1 Kgs 22.13-23; Jer. 23.16, 21; 27.15; Ezek. 13.2.

14


suggest divine influence. There are only a few prophetic figures in the Hebrew Bible who are in this sense 'inspired'. The spirit comes upon Balaam and he pronounces an oracle (Num. 24.2). The spirit comes upon Saul and he prophesies (1 Sam. 10.6-13). The hand of YHWH sometimes motivates the prophet-priest Ezekiel to prophesy (for example Ezek. 1.3; 3.22; 33.22). More importantly, inspiration also introduces a variety of non-prophetic activities. The spirit inspires Saul to go to battle (1 Sam. 11.6). The spirit possesses Gideon and inspires him to lead Israel (Judg. 6.34). The hand of YHWH was upon Ezra, making him an inspired teacher of the Law (Ezra 7.6). The spirit inspired the psalms of David (2 Sam. 23.1-2) and the music of the Levites (1 Chron. 25.1). Thus, while the term 'inspiration' may describe some prophetic episodes, this term should not be associated exclusively, or even primarily, with prophecy. Discussions of post-exilic prophecy have focused on the so-called 'decline', 'demise' or 'end' of prophecy.9 The pejorative terms of this discussion are shaped by Wellhausen's analysis of Israel's history. Just as post-exilic religion was in decline, so post-exilic prophecy was also in decline. The study of the post-exilic period must break out of the negative assumptions of the Wellhausian analysis.10 The decline of prophecy depends on a particular definition of 'prophecy'. From a sociological perspective, the theory of the demise of prophecy stands on shaky foundations. Thomas Overholt notes, 'we cannot correctly say that prophecy ended with the exile, either in the sense that it ceased or that it was transformed into something else'. Rather, Overholt suggests, 'we ought to conceive of prophecy as a continuing potentiality in a given society...'11 Those who speak about the decline of prophecy define prophecy in such a way as to exclude, for 9. Scholars use different but essentially synonymous terms. See the survey by R. Mason, The Prophets of the Restoration', in Coggins, Phillips and Knibb (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Tradition, pp. 137-54. 10. See Peter Ackroyd's survey of some of the negative attitudes about the postexilic period, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OIL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), pp. 1-4. 11. Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), p. 161. Similar opinions are expressed by S. Reid, The End of Prophecy in Light of Contemporary Social Theory', SBLSP 24 (1985), pp. 515-23; D. Petersen, 'Israelite Prophecy: Change Versus Continuity', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (VTSup, 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), pp. 190-203.

Introduction

15

example, apocalyptic. Sociological approaches to prophecy point to an inherent continuity in prophecy throughout history. In ancient Israel this continuity is underscored by the post-exilic prophetic compositions (for example Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi). Still, the perception of a distinction between pre-exilic and post-exilic prophecy is not a scholarly invention. Rabbinic literature recognizes an end in prophecy. For instance, t. Sot. 13.2-3 expresses this idea categorically: After the first temple was destroyed, kingship ceased from the house of David, the Urim and the Thummim ceased... After Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—the latter prophets—died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel; nevertheless they were informed by the Bat Qol. When the sages gathered together at Beth-Guria in Jericho, they heard the Bat Qol saying, 'There is a man here that is worthy of the Holy Spirit, but his generation is unworthy of it'. And they set their eyes on Hillel the elder.12

With the destruction of the first temple comes the end of an era. This destruction brings the end of kingship, cultic intermediation and prophecy. These phenomena define prophecy in terms of the first temple and the monarchy, that is, in terms of the institutions which characterize the First Temple period. This perspective describes the end of classical prophecy, that is, prophecy associated with the classical period of Israel's history. Prophecy ceases when that socio-political context ends. This is in fact the approach that Shemaryahu Talmon has taken concerning the waning of prophecy. He writes, Most severely affected was the prophetic leadership and the very phenomenon of prophecy. The prophet's personal charisma lacked the staying power which the institution-character conferred upon monarchy and 12. All translations are my own unless otherwise stated. Cf. m. Sot 9.12; b. Sank. 1 la; 2 Bar. 85.1-3. The end of the classical prophetic age is also implicit in 1 Maccabees: 'until there should come a prophet' (4.46), 'the prophets ceased to appear' (9.27), and 'until a prophet should arise' (14.41). This same periodization of history is also implicit in m. Ab. 1.1. See further references in F. Greenspahn, 'Why Prophecy Ceased', JBL 108 (1989), pp. 37-49; E. Urbach points out that there was an expectation of prophets and prophecy throughout the Second Temple period: 'When Does Prophecy End?', in M. Weinfeld (ed.), A Biblical Studies Reader (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979 [Hebrew]), pp. 58-68. Indeed, it is true that the Pharisees expected a prophet to arise (though not out of Galilee). However, the expectation of a prophet was to restore the prophetic office as we see in Maccabees. Of course, early Judaism was not monolithic in its view of prophecy; cf. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, pp. 104-106.

16

The Word of God in Transition priesthood. Thus, the fall of Judah and Jerusalem signaled the wane of prophecy. Although there will be a short-lived re-emergence of prophecy in the Period of the Return (Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi), the need for a replacement of personal inspiration as a principle of public guidance by more rational and controllable forms of instruction had become acute. Ultimately, the transformation will crystallize in new classes of spiritual leaders—the Scribes, and then the Sages.13

Talmon correctly identifies the staying power of the priesthood and the monarchy with their institutional character. These institutions were transformed. Talmon points out that the 'idea and ideal of royalty' gain strength in the post-exilic period and become the embodiment of restoration-hope and ideology. Similarly, the destruction of the temple is survived by the vision of the future restoration of the temple and the sacrificial cult. Quite contrary to Talmon's assertion, however, a form of the prophetic voice continues after the classical prophetic age. Admittedly, the prophetic office wanes—with the exception of the latter prophets. But the scribes and sages are also inspired. Ezra, of course, is guided by the 'hand of YHWH'. Baruch is the classic example in the Second Temple literature of the inspired scribe. In the passage cited above, the Tosefta suggests that the sages continued to receive authoritative inspiration for their teaching by the Bat Qol, which is often translated as 'echo'.14 The Bat Qol is an echo in the sense that it was perceived as a diminished reflection of classical prophecy. In Qumran literature the Teacher of Righteousness is not called a prophet, nevertheless God reveals to him the mysteries of the words of the prophets (IQpHab 7.45). Although Josephus acknowledges that the 'exact succession of prophets' had ended in the Persian period (Apion 1.41), he affirms that

13. S. Talmon, The Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism in the Early Second Temple Period', in King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), p. 180. 14. See, for example, J. Neusner, The Tosefta: Nashim (New York: Ktav, 1979), ad loc. This translation follows the comment of Rabbi Meir Abulafia in the Palestinian Talmud which explains the Bat Qol as a 'reverberating sound, echo C?lp man)' (see S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 2nd edn, 1962], p. 194). On the Bat Qol see Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, pp. 194-99; A. Rothkoff, 'Bat Kol', EncJud, IV (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 324-25; G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: Collins, 1973), pp. 90-94.

Introduction

17

prophets could still arise and individuals could still prophesy.15 Although the succession of Mosaic prophets ended (cf. Deut. 18.15-18), the prophetic gift still was given to certain individuals.16 The New Testament texts which suggest that John the Baptist and Jesus are prophets must be seen in this light (Mt. 21.26; Mk 6.15; Lk. 7.16; Jn 1.21, 25; 7.52). John the Baptist and Jesus are thought to be the prophet who shall arise and restore the prophetic office, that is, restore the succession of Mosaic prophets. This Mosaic succession is aligned with the canonical 'Former Prophets' (Joshua-2 Kings), thus beginning with Joshua and ending with the fall of the monarchy. This implies a close connection between the end of classical prophecy and the end of the monarchy. These texts reflect both a distinction between prophecy in pre-exilic and post-exilic periods and a continuity in the prophetic voice.17 A decline in prophecy has some basis in exilic and post-exilic literature. For example, Ps. 74.9 expresses a widely held view in the Second Temple period: 'We do not see our signs, there is no longer any prophet; And, no one among us knows for how long!' This psalm, although difficult to date precisely, apparently speaks about the period of the Babylonian exile (cf. vv. 1-8). In the book of Zechariah, the term 'the former prophets' appears in relation to the prophets who foretold the end of the monarchy and the exile (Zech. 1.4; 7.7, 12). The 'former prophets' belonged to a time 'when Jerusalem and her towns were peopled and peaceful' (Zech. 7.7). It is probably significant that the last of the 'latter prophets', Malachi, is never called a 'prophet' but only a 'messenger' (cf. Mai. 2.7; 3.1). In fact, the title of the book may not be a proper name, 'Malachi', but rather may simply be translated 'my messenger' . In addition, the prophet Haggai is called 'messenger of YHWH' 15. On the exact succession of prophets see S. Lieman,' Josephus and the Canon of the Bible', in L. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible, and History (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), pp. 55-56. On the continuation of prophecy in Josephus, see D. Aune, 'The Use of RPOOHTHS in Josephus', JBL 101 (1982), p. 420; J. Blenkinsopp, 'Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus', JJS 25 (1974), pp. 239-62. 16. For example, the prophetic gift was given to the high priest once a year (cf. Jn 11.51). 17. Greenspahn emphasizes that the cessation of prophecy was not an empirical observation, 'but a denigration and even denial of these figures' legitimacy' ('Why Prophecy Ceased', p. 48). Greenspahn follows E. Urbach, 'The no~n as the Foundation of Halacha and the Problem of the Scribes', Tarbiz 27 (1958), pp. 16682 (Hebrew).

18


(Hag. 1.13). The emergence of 'messenger' as a term for 'prophet' in these post-exilic books already suggests some distinction between the preexilic and post-exilic prophets (on the term 'messenger', see Chapter 2). Several studies have attempted to explain post-exilic prophecy by the close relationship between classical prophecy and monarchy. This theory suggests that the decline of classical prophecy follows the destruction of the temple and the resultant demise of the kingship and unconsciously echoes the rabbinic tradition discussed above. The theory finds support in William F. Albright's analysis of the origins of the prophetic movement. Albright argued that the judge/seer Samuel encouraged and shaped the classical prophetic movement as a counterbalance to the incipient monarchy.18 Although Albright developed this theory to explain the origins of prophecy, the implications for the post-exilic period are clear. Just as prophecy rose with kingship, so also prophecy ended with kingship. Frank Moore Cross articulates his teacher's viewpoint: 'It is fair to say that the institution of prophecy appeared simultaneously with kingship in Israel and fell with kingship'.19 An organic relationship between kingship and prophecy thus becomes a working premise behind several studies of post-exilic prophecy. Paul Hanson develops his theory concerning the origin of the apocalyptic on the premise that kingship and classical prophecy were closely related: After 587 the picture changes. Israel's political identity as a nation comes to an end. The office of kingship ends. The prophets no longer have the events of a nation's history into which they can translate the terms of Yahweh's cosmic will.20 18. Albright expressed this theory in the 1961 Goldenson Lecture (Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati); see 'Samuel and the Beginnings of the Prophetic Movement', in Archaeology, Historical Analogy and Early Biblical Tradition (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1966), pp. 42-65. See the survey by J.R. Porter, The Origins of Prophecy in Israel', in Coggins, Phillips and Knibb (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Tradition, pp. 13-20. 19. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), p. 223; also see I.L. Seeligmann, 'Die Auffassung von der Prophetic in der deuteronomischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung (mit einem Exkurs iiber das Buch Jeremia)', in Congress Volume Gottingen 1977 (VTSup, 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978), p. 271; J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), pp. 182-84. 20. The Dawn of the Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, rev. edn, 1979),

Introduction

19

From this cataclysmic event, Hanson argues that two streams of thought developed in the post-exilic period: the theocratic view, which can be associated with the Chronicler and the priestly writers, and the eschatological view, which found its expression in apocalyptic literature. David Petersen's study Late Israelite Prophecy builds on approaches advanced by Albright and Cross concerning kingship and those of Hanson and Ploger concerning post-exilic Judaism. Petersen also sees an integral connection between the king and the prophet: what we call Israelite prophecy began only with the monarchy and ended about the time that Israel ceased to be a nation. This correlation between monarchy and prophecy is not accidental, but constitutes the critical clue to the locus of classical Israelite prophecy, its connection with the political institution of monarchy.21

Following Ploger, Petersen suggests that this historical event precipitated the development of two 'theological streams' in post-exilic prophecy. He argues that the theocratic circles produced Chronicles and the eschatological circles produced the deutero-prophetic literature (that is, Deutero-Isaiah, the Isaianic Apocalypse, Trito-Isaiah, Malachi, Joel, Deutero-Z^chariah) ,22 Cogent objections have been raised against the supposed organic relationship between monarchy and prophecy. Rex Mason questions 'whether monarchy had the cause-and-effect relationship that Petersen claims' ,23 Mason points out that the prophets naturally were concerned with the monarchy, but also with many other national, social and religious issues. Even Petersen admits that the prophets, at least beginning in the eighth century, turn their attention to the whole nation;24 this undermines an integral relationship between king and prophet. p. 16. Hanson's analysis, to some extent, builds on Otto Ploger's work Theocracy and Eschatology (ET; Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), although Hanson is somewhat critical of Ploger as a diachronic oversimplification. 21. Late Israelite Prophecy, p. 2. 22. Cf. Late Israelite Prophecy, pp. 1-8; Paul Hanson points out in a review of Petersen that post-exilic Israel was probably much more complex than Petersen allows: JBL 98 (1979), pp. 428-31; also see review by H.G.M. Williamson, Int 33 (1979), pp. 206-208. 23. The Prophets of the Restoration', p. 140. 24. Cf. J. Holladay, 'Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel', HTR 63 (1970), pp. 29-51. In Petersen's most recent study, he emphasizes more pointedly that prophecy does not end with the Babylonian exile, but is reshaped by a new socio-political context: 'Israelite Prophecy: Change Versus Continuity', pp. 193-95.

20


Moreover, as Robert Wilson points out, prophecy likely existed in Israel even before the rise of the monarchy.25 If prophecy existed before the monarchy, then it was interested in issues outside of monarchy and it is unlikely that the end of monarchy was accompanied by an end to prophecy. Several scholars suggest that prophecy declined because it in some way 'failed'. Aubrey Johnson argues that false prophecy and the resultant distrust of the prophetic enterprise precipitated the demise of prophecy. The 'false' prophets lulled Judah into an illusionary sense of peace, and, as a result, the people were exiled to Babylon. According to Johnson, the old cultic prophet lost prestige as a result of the Babylonian exile but still maintained a position, albeit with the reduced rank of a temple singer. Thus, there existed a continuity between the old cultic prophets and the levitical singers in Chronicles.26 James Crenshaw in Prophetic Conflict (1977) argues that prophecy declined because it was unsuccessful. He writes, 'When one looks at the Israelite response to the prophets, this decline of prophecy to its original status becomes understandable. At no time did the prophets meet with success, save in fiction (Jonah) or in matters of the cult (Haggai and Zechariah)'.27 Crenshaw emphasizes the prophets' failure to face the disparity between theology and experience. Thus, prophecy ended because it was ineffectual. Apocalyptic and wisdom replaced prophecy because they dealt more directly and successfully with daily experience. In When Prophecy Failed (1979), Robert Carroll applies the psychological theory of 'cognitive dissonance' and comes to a similar conclusion. Carroll suggests that both prophetic hermeneutics and apocalyptic arise from the dissonance between prophecy and fulfillment. Hermeneutic essentially provides explanations that reduce tension between expectation and reality. 25. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), pp. 89-90. 26. A. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2nd edn, 1962), pp. 66-75. Also see J.P. Weinberg who sees an authentic extra-canonical prophetic movement behind the activities of the levitical singers: 'Die "Ausserkanonischen Prophezeiungen" in den Chronikbiichern', Acta Antiqua 26 (1978), pp. 387-404. However, this position has not found much acceptance because of the deep skepticism about the Chronicler's historical reliability and use of sources; see for example S. de Vries, The Forms of Prophetic Address in Chronicles', HAR 10 (1986), pp. 15-16. 27. Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect upon Israelite Religion (BZAW, 124; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), pp. 93-94.

Introduction

21

Apocalyptic also arises as 'the resolution of the dissonance caused by the lack of fulfillment of prophecy in the early post-exilic period' ,28 Rex Mason, on the other hand, suggests that prophecy died because it succeeded. He makes the compelling observation: 'It is strange that, if earlier prophecy were regarded as having proved such a "failure", the post-exilic period should have been the time when the present prophetic collections were formed and invested with increasing authority'.29 Thus, 'prophecy began to die, or change, after the exile, not because of its failure but because of its "success". The judgment of the exile was seen as confirmation of the predictions of those prophets who had not cried "peace" when there was no peace...'30 Precisely because the prophets were right, their oracles were collected and these collections gradually increased in authority. The success of the prophets is seen in the very preservation of their words. Ironically, then, the authority of these prophets was now found in written documents which supplanted the 'living' word. For this reason, living prophecy was replaced by the study and interpretation of earlier prophetic texts.31 Joseph Blenkinsopp suggests that prophecy did not end, but was merely relocated. After the fall of the monarchy, the temple filled the vacuum left by the monarchy and consequently prophecy was absorbed into the cult. Blenkinsopp points to the 'predominance of liturgical forms and cultic concerns in Haggai, Zechariah, Third Isaiah, and Malachi' ,32 For instance, Haggai and Zechariah are particularly interested in the rebuilding of the temple. This analysis follows the lines of the rabbinic dictum that prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to the sages (cf. b. B. Bat. 12a). This relocation of prophecy accounts for both 'scribal prophecy' and 'clerical prophecy' and explains why scribal teaching replaces prophecy (Sir. 24.S3).33 28. R. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonance in Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament (New York: Seabury, 1979), p. 205. 29. The Prophets of the Restoration', p. 141. 30. The Prophets of the Restoration', p. 142. 31. On the prophetic reinterpretation of texts see M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 443-505. 32. A History of Prophecy in Israel, p. 253. Blenkinsopp's study on prophecy and priesthood in the late Second Temple period further supports his view of the relocation of prophecy; see 'Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus'. 33. For these categories see J. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), pp. 128-38. Another view of the relocation of prophecy is advocated by David Petersen. Petersen points out that the pre-exilic

22


Every theory which tries to explain the so-called decline in prophecy must contend with a catastrophic event in Israel's history—the Babylonian exile. This event heralds both the success and failure of prophecy, that is, the success of 'true' prophets, the failure of 'false' prophets. The Babylonians not only exiled the people, they also destroyed their institutions. Post-exilic prophecy then is a reflection of new realities and new priorities. And there is both an "end" and a continuation of prophecy. Clearly, post-exilic literature perceived the decline of the classical prophets, yet there is also a continuation of the prophetic voice. For instance, Blenkinsopp points to the cultic concerns in the post-exilic prophets. By most accounts, the exile precipitated the collecting and editing of earlier traditions. With the writing down of tradition comes the inevitable process of interpretation. The exilic redaction of the Deuteronomistic History is one example of the process of collecting and editing earlier traditions that went on in the exilic period. The book of Chronicles follows as an example of the reinterpretation of that tradition. Chronicles is, on the one hand, an interpretation of ancient prophecy and, on the other hand, a reflection of post-exilic prophecy itself. 2. Prophecy in the Book of Chronicles The book of Chronicles contains a great diversity in prophetic activity. For instance, Chronicles uses prophets and seers to warn kings of impending judgment. The Chronicler refers to levitical singers as 'seers' who 'prophesy' with musical instruments. Priests and Levites receive divine inspiration and prophesy. A foreign king like Pharaoh Neco acts and speaks by divine inspiration.34 The source citations of the regnal resumes cite prophets as historical sources. Even David and Solomon receive divine revelation. Although a version of Samuel-Kings was apparently the main source of the Chronicler's35 history, most of the prophetic narratives in and post-exilic prophets functioned in different socio-political contexts and this affected directly the forms of intermediation: 'Israelite Prophecy: Change Versus Continuity'. 34. Cyrus is also an inspired figure since 'YHWH roused the spirit of Cyrus' (2 Chron. 36.22-23; Ezra 1.1-2). According to Isa. 55.1, YHWH spoke a special message to Cyrus, YHWH's 'anointed one' (irrtia). Still, the Cyrus decree itself does not seem to be a prophetic speech. 35. By 'the Chronicler' I refer only to the author of the books of Chronicles. Until recently, scholars followed the rabbinic tradition which held that the books of

Introduction

23

Chronicles36 have no parallel in Samuel-Kings.37 The obvious reason for this is that the prophetic narratives in Samuel-Kings mostly concern the northern kingdom. For example, from 1 Kings 12 to 2 Kings 17 (the period of the divided monarchy), every single prophetic narrative concerns a northern prophet or the northern kingdom. Since the Chronicler wrote a history of the southern kingdom, there was little for the Chronicler to borrow.38 There must have been stories of Judaean prophets, but we do not have them in the book of Kings. What then was the source of the Chronicler's prophetic narratives? Did the Chronicler freely compose or borrow from a prophetic source? There is scant Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles were a unity (cf. b. B. Bat. 15a). William F. Albright even tried to defend the rabbinic attribution of authorship to Ezra ('The Date and Personality of the Chronicler', JBL 40 [1921], pp. 104-24). However, the linguistic and thematic arguments which served as the foundation of the single author theory have been seriously undermined by Sara Japhet and H.G.M. Williamson (cf. Japhet, The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew', VT 18 [1968], pp. 330-71; H.G.M. Williamson, Israel in the Book of Chronicles [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977], pp. 5-70). The authorship of Chronicles remains a lingering question among some scholars; cf. D. Talshir, 'A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah', VT38 (1988), pp. 165-93; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), pp. 47-54. 36. The arguments for multiple redactions of the book of Chronicles have never been able to hold a scholarly consensus. The question depends on the Chronicler's compositional procedures, and as Japhet points out the Chronicler 'attempts to combine a number of divergent trends without fully harmonizing them' (The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought [ET; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1989], p. 142). This being the case, it will be difficult to prove any multiple redaction theory for Chronicles. See further Chapter 4, 'Excursus: The Redaction of 1 Chronicles 23-27'. 37. The problem of the Vorlage of the books of Chronicles remains an open question. The Qumran discoveries first raised the possibility that the textual tradition of Samuel-Kings which the Chronicler used was different than the Masoretic tradition. More recent studies raise the possibility that the Chronicler's main source for his work may have been an earlier redaction of Samuel-Kings; cf. S. McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM, 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) and A.G. Auld, 'Prophets through the Looking Glass: Between Writings and Moses', JSOT 27 (1983), pp. 3-23. H.G.M. Williamson has a modest proposal: "The Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the Deuteronomic History', VT 32 (1982), pp. 242-47. 38. See Chapter 3 for the Chronicler's reuse of prophetic narratives from Samuel-Kings.

24


evidence to prove that the Chronicler used any written collection of prophetic stories for his prophetic narratives. The prophetic speeches reflect the Chronicler's own language and theology.39 In this respect, the prophetic narratives are a first-hand reflection of the Chronicler's views of prophets, prophecy and inspiration. Previous studies have usually addressed only isolated aspects of prophecy in Chronicles. The issue of historical reliability has shaped the scholarly agenda of the book of Chronicles ever since it was raised by W.H.L. de Wette and forcefully articulated by Julius Wellhausen.40 Consequently, studies on prophecy in Chronicles have been limited in their scope. They have addressed the issues of the form of prophetic narratives, levitical prophecy, royal prophecy and the prophetic source citations, but have not attempted a synthetic treatment of prophecy in Chronicles. General studies of prophecy have largely ignored the book of Chronicles. For instance, John Sawyer's Prophecy and the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible (1987) includes a discussion of prophecy in the Deuteronomistic History, but no comparable section on prophecy in Chronicles. Klaus Koch's two-volume survey Die Propheten (1978)41 makes frequent reference to the Deuteronomistic History, but the Chronicler's view of prophecy is almost completely overlooked. A more recent study by Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (1983), contains only a short section on Temple Prophecy' where the book of Chronicles is featured. Thus, much work remains to be done on the Chronicler's view of prophecy. The first significant contribution to research on prophecy in 39. See further Chapter 2. Simon de Vries shows that the Chronicler's nonsynoptic passages differ in form and function from the synoptic material and thus claims that the Chronicler invented both the prophets and the messages (The Forms of Prophetic Address in Chronicles', pp. 15-36). But de Vries proves the obvious, namely that the Chronicler did not rely on Samuel-Kings for his non-synoptic material. Since he did not use Samuel-Kings for this material we can hardly expect that the form and function will be the same. 40. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, pp. 222-23. See the surveys by S. Japhet, The Historical Reliability of Chronicles: The History of the Problem and its Place in Biblical Research', JSOT 3 (1985), pp. 83-107; R. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler (JSOTSup, 88; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 11-28; M.P. Graham, The Utilization of 1 and 2 Chronicles in the Reconstruction of Israelite History in the Nineteenth Century (SBLDS, 116; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). 41. Translated as The Prophets (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).

Introduction

25

Chronicles came in an indirect form. Gerhard von Rad's classic essay, 'Die levitische Predigt in den Buchern der Chronik' (1934),42 investigates the Chronicler's speeches, which he claims form a distinctive Gattung characterized by the following elements: (1) a quotation of an ancient source, (2) the application to some past situation of a theological principle exegetically derived from the quotation, and (3) an exhortation to faith and action. Von Rad believed that the 'Levitical Sermon' reflected standard levitical homiletic practice and assimilated the style of inspired prophetic utterance. He argued that these speeches were intended primarily to support the prophetic claims of the Levites and thus were motivated by political and institutional interests.43 Adam Welch's monograph, The Work of the Chronicler (1939), appeared not long after von Rad's essay and devoted a chapter to prophecy in Chronicles. His work prefigures more recent studies which link classical prophecy and kingship. Welch writes, ...to the Chronicler prophecy had always attended the kingdom, and... one of its leading functions had been to guide the kings in the only policy which could guarantee to them the divine protection and support. The Davidic kings were not merely, like all their subjects, under the torah: they were also controlled by the authentic voice of God, uttered by the prophets.44

Welch felt that the Chronicler conceived of prophecy as a charismatic institution; thus, the spirit came upon certain individuals and they prophesied. At the same time, he thought of prophets as having a recognized position in the royal court. The prophets attended the king; they counseled and at times rebuked the king. Unfortunately, Welch too easily dismissed the tension between the charismatic and traditional functions. The apparent contradiction between a charismatic institution and an official royal institution derives from the variety of 'prophetic' activity in 42. Translated as 'The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles', in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (London: SCM Press, 1966), pp. 267-80. 43. 'The Levitical Sermon in I and n Chronicles', pp. 269-72. 44. The Work of the Chronicler: Its Purpose and its Date (London: Oxford University Press, 1939), p. 42. T. Willi supports the connection between the king and the prophet: 'Die Zuordnung von Konig und Prophet hat also keine historischen Griinde, sondern ergibt sich einfach aus der Thematik der Chronik als einer Davididengeschichte: wie der Konig Israel vertritt, so ist der Prophet der Reprasentant Gottes in der Geschichte Israels'; Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT, 106; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), p. 223. However, Willi did not take this observation much further than Welch already had.

26


Chronicles. As we pay more attention to the different kinds of prophets and different types of prophecy this tension dissolves. Chapter 1 addresses the different kinds of prophets and prophecy reflected in the prophetic titles and inspiration formulas. The decades following the work of von Rad and Welch produced the commentaries of Kurt Galling (1954), Wilhelm Rudolph (1955) and Jacob Myers (1965). Surprisingly though, these commentaries did not provide a forum for an extended discussion of the Chronicler's view of prophecy and prophets. It has only been in the last two decades that studies have built on the work of von Rad in particular. Several studies have taken up von Rad's form-critical discussion of the prophetic speeches. Von Rad had claimed that the Chronicler 'actually inserted genuine sermons into his text wherever possible' and that 'these speeches are intended pre-eminently to support the prophetic claims of the Levites...'45 The studies by James Newsome and David Petersen rely on von Rad's claim that the 'Levitical Sermons' support the Levites' claims to prophetic authority. However, Rex Mason and D. Mathias have seriously challenged the existence of von Rad's Gattung. Mason objects that the formal Gattung is not present in Chronicles, but rather it is only 'elements' of a preaching style which are found here. Mason's criticism qualifies von Rad's proposal of a formal Gattung, yet still allows that the speeches in Chronicles reflect the 'method of preaching and teaching among the temple community'.46 A chorus of scholars suggests that the prophetic speeches function to warn the king. For instance, in The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (1989), Sara Japhet takes up prophecy in her discussion of the Chronicler's retribution theology. She argues that the Chronicler's prophets follow in the steps of the prophetpriest Ezekiel, 'the watchman of Israel' (Ezek. 3.16-17; 33.1-9). The 45. The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles', pp. 268, 277; also see O. Steck, Israel und das gewdltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Uberlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alien Testament, Spatjudentum und Urchristentum (WMANT, 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967). 46. R. Mason, 'Some Echoes of the Preaching in the Second Temple Period? Tradition Elements in Zechariah 1-8', ZAW 96 (1984), pp. 233; also see idem, Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile based on the 'Addresses' in Chronicles, the Speeches in Ezra andNehemiah and the Post-Exilic Books (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); D. Mathias, '"Levitische Predigt" und Deuteronomismus', ZAW 96 (1984), pp. 23-49.

Introduction

27

prophets' role is to call to repentance because God does not punish Israel without warning. For this reason, the Chronicler inserts the prophets at crucial points in his history to warn and call to repentance. In this respect, Japhet compares Chronicles to rabbinic literature, where warning is crucial to how God deals with his people.47 Japhet's view is echoed by other scholars. G. Fohrer, in Die Propheten des Allen Testaments, writes, 'The Prophets appear in the Chronistic historical work as admonishers and warners'.48 Seeligmann agrees that the Chronicler uses prophets to warn and contrasts Chronicles with the prophets in the deuteronomic tradition.49 However, warning oversimplifies the function of the prophetic speeches. The speeches have yet to be analyzed individually, with attention to the titles of each speaker, to determine the roles of the different types of prophetic figures. This is taken up in Chapter 2. Scholars have begun to recognize the importance of prophecy in Chronicles for the study of inner-biblical exegesis. For instance, in Die Chronik als Auslegung (1972), Thomas Willi emphasizes the role of the Chronicler's prophets as interpreters. Willi suggests that the Chronicler's prophets function as exegetes and expositors who advance the Chronicler's uberlieferungsgechichtliche Konzeption.50 Rosemarie Micheel concurs: 'The words of the prophetic individuals comment upon and interpret events within the corresponding history of kings...' 51 I.L. Seeligmann, from a discussion of the use and transformation of earlier prophetic writings, comes to a similar conclusion.52 Along these lines, M. Fishbane is quite correct in pointing out the contemporary aims of the Chronicler which influenced his use of prophetic speech.53 The 47. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, pp. 176-91. 48. Die Propheten des Alten Testaments. VII. Propheten Erzahlungen (Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus, 1977), pp. 36-37. 49. Seeligmann, 'Die Auffassung von der Prophetic in der deuteronomischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung', p. 283. 50. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung, pp. 215-44. 51. Die Seher- und Propheteniiberlieferungen in der Chronik (BET, 18; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1983), p. 67. 52. Seeligmann, 'Die Auffassung von der Prophetic in der deuteronomischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung', p. 273. Also see Y. Amit, 'The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Theology of the Books of Chronicles', Beth Mikra 93 (1983), p. 133. 53. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 386-92, and The Garments of I orah (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), pp. 11-18.

28


Chronicler addresses the post-exilic community via the mouth of a prophet who cites and aggadically transforms Scripture. Alongside the 'political and institutional interests' which von Rad emphasized, we must recognize, as Fishbane stresses, 'the inevitable preeminence of the divine voice in biblical culture'.54 Chapter 3 takes up the Chronicler's reinterpretation of prophecies in Samuel-Kings. Other studies have taken up the issues of levitical and royal prophecy in Chronicles. David Petersen argues that the Chronicler presents the levitical singers as prophets. He supports this position with four pieces of evidence: (1) the characterization of Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun as those who prophesied (1 Chron. 25.1) and Heman as 'the king's seer' (1 Chron. 25.5); (2) the prominent place given to the Levites; (3) the use of the Levite Jahaziel to exhort Israel to a 'holy war' (2 Chron. 20.1417); and (4) the replacement of 'priests and prophets' in 2 Kgs 23.2 with 'priests and Levites' in 2 Chron. 34.30.55 However, this evidence is problematic. Williamson points out in a review of Petersen's book that the Chronicler's references to the Levites make 'no claim at any point to be identified with classical prophecy'.56 However, Peterson's study raises important questions about the Chronicler's view of inspiration and prophecy. These issues as well as Petersen's arguments are addressed in Chapter 4. James Newsome's doctoral dissertation, 'The Chronicler's View of Prophecy' (1973), discusses levitical prophecy and royal prophecy. Newsome's analysis begins with von Rad's discussion of the 'Levitical Sermon' and makes the simple equation, 'these Levitical sermons are prophetic sermons'.57 As a result, Newsome understands the Levites to

Recently, Rodney Duke applied rhetorical analysis to the speeches. Duke also emphasizes the contemporary message: 'When David or a prophet exhorts their audience, the Chronicler's audience, too, receives the exhortation' (The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler, p. 146). 54. The Garments ofTorah, p. 17. 55. Late Israelite Prophecy, pp. 55-87. 56. Williamson criticizes Petersen's conclusion here, pointing out that the Chronicler's references make 'no claim at any point to be identified with classical prophecy' (cf. Int 33 [1979], p. 206). 57. Newsome, 'The Chronicler's View of Prophecy' (PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1973), p. 78. Newsome's salient conclusions are summarized in his article, Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes', JBL 94 (1975), pp. 201-17.

Introduction

29

be prophets and temple service to be 'a kind of ritualized prophecy'.58 He also suggests that the Davidic kings are prophets: 'the Davidid becomes the prophetic medium through whom Yahweh makes his will known to the kingdom and the people'.59 Yet there is no reason for the so-called 'Levitical Sermon' to be termed 'prophetic'. The genre itself is not typical of prophecy. Still, David and Solomon do have a special place in the Chronicler's work. Chapter 5 addresses the question of royal prophecy and focuses, in particular, on David's prophetic role in Chronicles. The problem of the Chronicler's historical reliability has focused some attention on the Chronicler's prophetic source citations. The Chronicler cites a variety of prophetic sources for the kings of Judah, for example, 'the prophecy of Ahijah' and 'the midrash of the prophet Iddo'. These references have been largely discounted and ignored. Rosemarie Micheel has suggested that the Chronicler used them to authorize his history.60 However, Thomas Willi emphasizes that the prophetic source references should not be ignored since they are an important piece in the Chronicler's historiographical conception as well as his view of prophets. Chapter 6 explores how these prophetic source references contribute to the Chronicler's view of prophets. Clearly, the last two decades have seen a flurry of work on prophecy and prophets in Chronicles. Although these studies have not integrated all aspects of the Chronicler's view of prophecy, they have raised critical issues: the form-critical aspects of the prophetic speeches, the Chronicler's use of earlier traditions, the 'prophetic' role of the Levites, the relationship between the prophet and the king, and the prophetic references in the source citations. These topics will be taken up in individual chapters. However, we must begin by examining the Chronicler's use of prophetic terminology, specifically prophetic titles and inspiration formulas. Previous studies have not paid adequate attention to the roles of different kinds of prophets (for example, nabi' as against hozeh and the different types of inspiration (for example, 'the word of God came to...', 'and the spirit enveloped') in Chronicles. 58. The Chronicler's View of Prophecy', p. 223. 59. Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes', p. 204; also see The Chronicler's View of Prophecy', pp. 225-26. C.T. Begg argues that Hezekiah in particular is presented as a prophet in Chronicles: The Classical Prophets in the Chronistic History', 5Z 32 (1988), p. 102. 60. Die Seher- and Prophetenuberlieferungen in der Chronik, pp. 71-80.


Chapter 1 PROPHETIC TITLES AND INSPIRATION FORMULAS

Glaus Westermann begins his classic study Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech by asking three questions: 'Who speaks? To whom does he speak? What takes place in this speaking?'1 These questions deal with the origin, audience, and form and content of the prophetic speeches. To these questions we will add, how does the prophet speak? This last question raises the issue of a claim of inspiration for prophetic speech. These four questions will concern us in the first two chapters. We begin this chapter by examining 'who speaks?' The English term 'prophet' is ambiguous.2 The LXX's use of the term rcpO(priTr)elohim over yhwh in late biblical Hebrew.62 The role label 'servant of YHWH' is a prophetic title in deuteronomic literature. Moses is the recipient of the title 'servant of YHWH' and he is the prophet par excellence in deuteronomic literature. The phrase 'my servants the prophets' is frequently employed in deuteronomic literature.63 In the Psalm superscriptions which call David a 'servant of YHWH', the designation relates to David's association with these authoritative liturgical traditions. According to Qumran and rabbinic traditions, David was divinely inspired to write psalms. Moreover, it is David's role as a psalmist which made him a 'prophet' in later tradition since all the writers of Scripture were 'prophets'. Still, 'servant of YHWH' is used as a title only for figures peripheral to the classical prophetic tradition, figures like Moses, Joshua, David or the anonymous servant from the Isaianic 'Servant Songs'. Certainly, the prophets were YHWH's servants (as the phrase 'my servants the prophets' illustrates) however, this title was not generally applied to prophetic figures. 'Servant ofYHWH/God' in Chronicles. Chronicles only gives these titles to Moses. The deuteronomic phrase 'my servants the prophets', and its variations, is absent in Chronicles. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the Chronicler necessarily shared the Deuteronomist's view that Moses was the prophet par excellence. From the frequent citation of Mosaic legislation in Chronicles, it is clear that the Chronicler considered Moses the legislator par excellence. It is not surprising then that all four cases of this title for Moses relate to Moses' legislative role. The titles 'servant of God' and 'servant of YHWH', in Chronicles then are 24.29; also Deut. 34.5; Judg. 2.8; 2 Kgs 18.12; Isa. 42.19; Ps. 18.1; 36.1; 2 Chron. 1.3; 24.6. 62. Cf. Dan. 9.11; Neh. 10.30; 1 Chron. 6.34; 2 Chron. 24.9. 63. Also note the variations, 'your servants the nebi'im' and 'my servants the nebi'im\ Cf. 2 Kgs 9.7; 17.13, 23; 21.10; 24.2; Jer. 7.25; 44.4; Amos 3.7; Zech. 1.6; Dan. 9.6, 10; Ezra 9.11. The use of this phrase in Zechariah, Daniel and Ezra reflects post-deuteronomic influence.

1. Prophetic Titles and Inspiration Formulas

53

restricted to Moses and it would be difficult to classify them as 'prophetic titles'. Summary The semantic relationship between the various role labels in Chronicles may be illustrated by the overlapping circles of meaning seen in the figure below.

nabi' ho&eh

ro eh

Man of God

Royal Seer

Servant of God

The label nabi' is the most common term which the Chronicler uses for prophets. It is a general label for the prophetic office. It is to this label that we may relate the other prophetic labels which are used in Chronicles. The most restricted role label which the Chronicler employs is 'royal seer' (hozeh hamelek, which the Chronicler uses especially to refer to the heads of the levitical singers. The Chronicler also follows 2 Samuel in ascribing this title to Gad. The Chronicler only gives the title 'royal seer' to people associated with David, either the heads of the levitical singers or Gad thus, hozeh hamelek is apparently interchangeable with David's hozeh. On the other hand, Chronicles applies the title hozeh to prophets who recorded the 'deeds of the king'. The Chronicler prefers the title hozeh as opposed to nabi' in the source references. A hozeh may also be called nabi' (for instance, Gad), but every nabi' is not necessarily a hozeh. There is limited evidence from which to ascertain a special meaning

54


for the role label ro 'eh in Chronicles. According to an editor of the Samuel traditions, the label ro'eh was an archaic term for a nabi' (for example, 1 Sam. 9.9). The evidence does not allow use to improve upon the ancient redactor's note. The label 'man of God' describes a diverse set of characters. This label designates everyone from David to Moses to prophetic figures. The Chronicler considers some characters who are labeled 'man of God' also to be nebi'im. Thus, the Chronicler gives Elijah and Shemaiah the title nabi' where the Chronicler's sources use 'man of God'. The Chronicler's preference for the title nabi' where his sources prefer 'man of God' suggests that he was uncomfortable with the use of 'man of God' as a strictly prophetic title. Thus, it is unlikely that the Chronicler would have used the term nabi' for David, although he does use the term 'man of God' for David. Likewise, it is significant that Moses is a 'man of God' in Chronicles, not a nabi'. Although the deuteronomic tradition considered Moses the prophet par excellence, Chronicles portrays Moses as a legislator rather than a prophet. The books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah prefer the more general labels 'man of God' and 'servant of YHWH' for Moses. Inspiration Formulas A prophetic title implies divine authority, even where formulas do not claim divine authority. The bearer of a prophetic title is the messenger of God. Yet there are messengers from God who do not bear prophetic titles but are still inspired by God.64 Inspiration formulas act in lieu of a prophetic title as a claim to prophetic speech. This is the mixed situation we meet in the books of Chronicles. Prophecy is not restricted to those who bear prophetic titles in Chronicles. Given this situation, to answer completely Westermann's question 'Who speaks?' we must also examine prophetic speeches by persons who do not bear prophetic titles. 64. J.R. Porter compares ancient Israel to the pre-Islamic Arabs: 'In that society which, in its social structure and historical development, is in many ways very close to ancient Israel, the pre-Islamic Arabs, we find that categories closely corresponding to those we can see in Israel are not sharply distinguished from one another and to some degree overlap. In the ancient Near East, too, we meet a wide diversity of inspired persons, whose functions cannot always be clearly separated one from another' (The Origins of Prophecy in Israel', pp. 17-18). See further idem, 'PreIslamic Arabic Historical Tradition and the Early Historical Narratives of the Old Testament', JBL 87 (1968), pp. 17-26.


55

In these cases, it is how one speaks which indicates the claim to divine authority. The nature of this claim must begin with a careful analysis of the inspiration formulas themselves. Chronicles marks 'inspired persons' with a variety of inspiration formulas. Some formulas reflect classical prophecy, for example 'thus says YHWH' (mm ~IQK ro). Other formulas represent variations of classical formulas, for example 'thus says God' (D'n^n nn« ro). Finally, there are some phrases which are uniquely employed as prophetic formulas in Chronicles, for example 'the spirit enveloped' (ntzja1? rm). I have divided the inspiration formulas into four categories: (1) messenger formulas such as 'thus says YHWH', 'thus says God', 'God said'; (2) intermediary formulas such as 'the word of YHWH came to...' (~*?tf mrr-Qt rrn), 'and YHWH spoke to...' (-•?« mrr -n-n), 'the angel of YHWH said to...' (3) possession formulas such as 'the spirit possessed' 'the spirit of YHWH came upon him' (mrr mi r^y nrrn); and (4) an enactment formula, 'to act like a prophet' (tann). The messenger formulas report the message which the speaker claims to have received from God, for example 'Thus says YHWH'. The intermediary formulas describe the mediation process, for example 'God spoke to me'. The possession formulas describe the inspiration of the speaker, for example 'the spirit of God came upon me'. Finally, the enactment formula describes the speaker playing a prophetic role, that is, 'I acted as a prophet'. These formulas all make a claim to divine authority and thus mark prophetic speeches. Messenger Formulas The messenger formulas report God's speech. The best-known of these formulas is 'thus says YHWH'. Chronicles uses this formula twelve times, in the speeches of Nathan, Gad, Shemaiah, Jehaziel, Zedekiah son of Chenaanah, Elijah and Huldah. In nine of the twelve instances, Chronicles relies on its Vorlage, the books of Kings.65 Thus, the 65. The synoptic passages include 1 Chron. 17.4, 7 (111 Sam. 7.5, 8); 1 Chron. 21.10, 11 (112 Sam. 24.12); 2 Chron. 11.4 (III Kgs 12.24); 2 Chron. 18.10 (III Kgs 22.11); 2 Chron. 34.23, 24, 26 (112 Kgs 22.15, 16, 18). The non-synoptic passages include 2 Chron. 12.5; 20.15; 21.12. On the messenger formula see Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, pp. 90-128; J. Ross, 'The Prophet as Yahweh's Messenger', in B. Anderson and W. Harrelson (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Tradition, pp. 99-101; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology. II. The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions (ET; New York: Harper & Row, 1965), pp. 36-39; A. Bj0rndalen, 'Zu den Zeitstufen der Zitatformel ~IDK ro im Botenverkehr', ZAW

56


Chronicler employs the messenger formula independently only three times. Messenger Formulas in the Hebrew Bible. The formula 'thus says YHWH' occurs 291 times in the Hebrew Bible; 185 of these are in the major prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah.66 In Ezekiel, we often find the variation, 'thus says the LORD God', which occurs over 120 times.67 Clearly then, the messenger formula is typical of classical biblical prophecy. However, John Greene has pointed out that these occurrences are not evenly distributed in the prophetic books.68 He notes that the messenger formula never occurs in Joel, Habakkuk and Hosea, and that it occurs only once in Nahum and Micah. Greene suggests that many occurrences of this formula may have been added by later editors and redactors during the development of the prophetic corpus. Yet the messenger formula itself is used so frequently and in so many different contexts that it cannot be considered just the work of later redactors. Later redactors used the messenger formula in editing the prophetic canon because they perceived it to be a classical prophetic formula. The messenger formula derives from the established protocol of official letters in the ancient Near East. Von Rad suggests that biblical

86 (1974), pp. 393-403; Y. Hoffman, 'On the Use of Two "Introductory Formulae" in Biblical Language', Tarbiz 46 (1976-77), pp. 157-80 (Hebrew); M. Weinfeld, 'Ancient Near Eastern Patterns in Prophetic Literature', VT27 (1977), pp. 178-79; M. Brettler, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOTSup, 76; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), p. 108; Holladay, 'Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel', pp. 29-51; J. Greene, The Role of the Messenger and the Message in the Ancient Near East (B JS, 169; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), p. 169. 66. In addition, the messenger formula is found 66 times in the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua-2 Kings), but only 10 times in the Pentateuch (mostly in the plague narratives; cf. Exod. 4.22; 5.1; 7.17, 26; 8.16; 9.1, 13; 10.3; 11.4; 32.27). 67. Other variations include 'thus says YHWH, God of Israel' and 'thus says YHWH Seba'ot'; see further Greene, The Role of the Messenger and the Message in the Ancient Near East, pp. 185-86. 68. Greene, The Role of the Messenger and the Message in the Ancient Near East, pp. 183-85. Greene's argument is that 'thus says YHWH' is not necessarily typical of prophetic speech and not necessarily a messenger formula. However, the fact remains that even though the term is not evenly distributed and occasionally does not introduce prophetic speeches, 'thus says YHWH' is the most frequent and characteristic term which introduces prophetic speech. Moreover, Greene cannot deny that this formula does have parallels in secular messenger formulas.


57

prophecy used the messenger formula because this was 'the most direct means of expressing its function' ,69 Von Rad explains, ... it was a common custom in the ancient word for a messenger with some announcement to make to discharge his errand when he came into the recipient's presence, by speaking in the first person, the form in which the message had been given to himself, that is to say, he completely submerged his own ego and spoke as if he were his master himself speaking to the other.70

This type of usage can still be found in the Hebrew Bible. For instance, Jacob sends messengers to his brother Esau to speak in his name: 4 And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau, his brother, to the land of Seir, the country of Edom. 5 And he commanded them saying, 'Thus you shall say, "To my lord, to Esau, thus says your servant Jacob, 7 have lived with Laban ..."" (Gen. 32.4-5).

The messenger delivers the message for the sender in the sender's voice, that is, in the first person rather than the third person. This is one of the characteristic features of the messenger formula. Messenger Formulas in Chronicles. Claus Westermann stresses the continuity between the classical formulation and the use of the messenger formula in the books of Chronicles. In his study Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, he argues, 'the unity of function and form of the JI [Judgment Speech to Individuals] has been preserved all the way down to the work of the Chronicler'.71 Yet the Chronicler's non-synoptic use of the messenger formula evinces some modification. Admittedly, in the prophecy of Shemaiah (2 Chron. 12.5-8), the messenger formula appears 'correctly' in its pre-exilic style and Westermann cites this example at length.72 However, other examples show significant modification in the messenger formula. In the speech of Jehaziel (2 Chron. 20.15) and in the 'letter of Elijah' (2 Chron. 21.12), the messenger formula introduces a prophetic speech recorded in the third person. The change contrasts with the prophet Shemaiah's second 69. Von Rad, The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions, p. 36. Wilson points out that 'the unity of the possessing spirit and its host is often reflected in the language used to express possession' (Prophecy and Society, p. 35). 70. The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions, p. 37. 71. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, p. 166. 72. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, p. 164. For the special features of 2 Chron. 12.2-9, see discussion below.

58


speech to Rehoboam, an example of the messenger formula which follows pre-exilic patterns (2 Chron. 12.5): 5 The prophet Shemaiah came to Rehoboam and the officers of Judah, who had assembled in Jerusalem because of Shishak, and he said to them, 'Thus says YHWH, "You had forsaken me, so / have forsaken you to Shishak".'

The prophet speaks in the first person, in the voice of YHWH. However, in the speech of Jehaziel, the messenger speaks in his own voice—not YHWH's (2 Chron. 20.14-15): 14 And the spirit of YHWH came upon Jahaziel, son of Zechariah, son of Benaiah, son of Jeiel, son of Mathaniah, the Levite from the sons of Asa, in the midst of the assembly, 15 and he said, 'Listen, all Judah, Jerusalemites, and king Jehoshaphat! Thus YHWH has said to you that you should not be afraid and should not be dismayed before this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's'.

The Levite refers to God in the third person, even though the messenger formula implies a quotation of the speech of God. Chronicles adds a prepositional phrase, 'to you', to the messenger formula in 2 Chron. 20.14-15. The prepositional phrase specifies the audience of the speech. This addition is not typical of the classical messenger formula. Almost invariably the messenger formula is followed by the message. The few exceptions to this pattern most likely reflect the process of writing down and transmission. This scribal process may be illustrated in Jer. 29.16-17:73 16 Thus said YHWH to the king who sits on the throne of David and to all the people who live in this city, your brothers who did not go with you into exile, 17 thus said YHWH of hosts, 'Behold, I am sending against them the sword, famine, and pestilence ...'

The literary nature of the prepositional clause which begins 'to the king' is indicated by the Wiederaufnahme ('thus said YHWH'). The repetition frames the prepositional clause. The specification of audience in a prepositional clause naturally fits a literary as opposed to an oral setting. It reflects a time when prophecies were written down and read. Chronicles apparently exhibits a similar modification of the classical form. The formula 'thus says God' in Chronicles is a slight variation of the 73. For other examples see Isa. 45.1; Jer. 4.3; 13.1.


59

messenger formula. It reflects the general pattern of exchanges in the divine name, of yhwh for >elohim, in the books of Chronicles.74 The expression 'thus says God' occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible, in the speech of the priest Zechariah (2 Chron. 24.20). It is similar to 2 Chron. 20.15 and 21.12, recording Zechariah's speech in the third person. This example, along with 20.15 and 21.12, further demonstrates that the Chronicler reflects modification in the classical expression of the messenger formula. Pharaoh Neco also appears in the role of a messenger from God to Josiah. Pharaoh uses the expression 'God says' (~in» D-n^wi) and gives a third-person, past-tense report of God's message to Josiah (2 Chron. 35.21). Pharaoh's speech incorporates what 'God had said' to him into a warning for Josiah. The use of the third person compares to the Chronicler's use of the messenger formula elsewhere. The divine inspiration of this message is confirmed by the statement that 'Josiah did not listen to the words of Neco which were from the mouth of God (D'rbKn "so)' (v. 22). This formula is, at best, loosely connected with the classical formulation of the messenger formula. Perhaps the Chronicler had reservations about using the classical prophetic messenger formula for the pagan king of Egypt. Later tradents found the very idea that Pharaoh had received the prophetic word a problem.75 74. There are numerous examples of these interchanges between Chronicles and Samuel-Kings. For instance, mrr rra is interchanged with n'n'psn rra (2 Chron. 34.9 111 Kgs 22.4). mrr p~i« is interchanged with crn^n ]TIK, cf. 1 Chron. 16.1 112 Sam. 6.17. And the divine name mrr is changed to DT^S, 1 Chron. 13.12 112 Sam 6.9. Von Rad had already noticed these changes and suggested that these interchanges must be explained on religious grounds. He writes: 'Der Gebrauch des Gottesnamens, der haufige Ersatz von "Jahwe" durch "Elohim" redet, das darf doch als gemeinsames Moment entnommen werden, von einer deutlichen Transzendentalisierung Jahwes' (Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes, p. 5). Also see the discussion of interchange of divine names by Japhet, Ideology of Chronicles, pp. 30-37. Japhet points out that 'the name "YHWH" appears in Chronicles in a variety of contexts, approximately five hundred times... It is difficult to reconcile this fact with a supposed general tendency to avoid the tetragrammaton' (36). Thus, she finds it difficult to see a theological purpose in each and every substitution. For other examples of this interchange compare 2 Chron. 3.3//1 Kgs 6.1; 2 Chron. 4.11; 1 Kgs 7.40; 2 Chron. 4.19//1 Kgs 7.48; 2 Chron. 5.1//1 Kgs 7.51; 2 Chron. 5.14//1 Kgs 8.11; 2 Chron. 7.5//1 Kgs 8.63; 2 Chron. 15.18//1 Kgs 15.15; 2 Chron. 22.12112 Kgs 11.3; 2 Chron. 23.37/2 Kgs 11.4; 2 Chron. 11.9// 2 Kgs 11.10; 2 Chron. 25.25/2 Kgs 14.14; 2 Chron. 34.9//2 Kgs 22.4. 75. Cf. 1 Esd. 1.26; Curtis, Chronicles, p. 517; H.G.M. Williamson, 'The

60


In sum, Chronicles modifies the classical use of the messenger formula. The only example of the classical use of the messenger formula appears in the prophet Shemaiah's speech to Rehoboam (see further discussion of this example in Chapter 2). The Chronicler develops this formula in two ways. First, he uses the third person instead of the first person voice so that the messenger speaks in his own voice rather than the voice of the sender. Secondly, he tacks a prepositional phrase onto the messenger formula, probably reflecting an increasingly literary setting for prophetic oracles. Finally, the Chronicler replaces the tetragram, YHWH, in the classical formula with >elohim. This last change is more cosmetic than substantive, yet it perhaps reflects the tendency of classical formulations to undergo modification when they are no longer in current use. Intermediary Formulas76 An intermediary formula presents a person as the bearer of a message from God to a human audience. The books of Chronicles employ four different intermediary formulas: 1. 2. 3. 4.

'the word of YHWH came to...' 'PN spoke in the name of YHWH' 'YHWH spoke to...' 'the angel of YHWH said to...'

These formulas signify that God communicates specifically through the speaker who is an intermediary, transmitting the word of God. In the fourth case, the speaker is the second intermediary, transmitting the word of God which came through an angel. Intermediary Formulas in the Hebrew Bible. The first formula follows the pattern 'the word of YHWH/God came to...' It appears almost 100 times in the classical prophets.77 Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the DeuteronomioHistory', VT 32 (1982), pp. 242-47; idem, 'Reliving the Death of Josiah: A Reply to C.T. Begg', VT 37 (1987), pp. 9-15. 76. Aune calls these 'Revelation Formulas': Prophecy in Early Christianity, p. 91. This description follows formulas like 'YHWH showed me' (for example, Amos 7.1). However, the term 'intermediary' seems to describe better the formulas in Chronicles. 77. -•?» mrr-o-r n-n occurs 20 times: cf. Gen. 15.1; Jer. 14.1; 25.3; 32.6; 46.1; 47.1; 49.34; Ezek. 1.3; 26.1; 29.1, 17; 30.20; 31.1; 32.1, 17; Hag. 2.10;


61

The second formula 'and PN spoke in the name of YHWH' appears only nine times in the Hebrew Bible.78 The key occurrence is Deut. 18.22, which is a law concerning false prophets: If a prophet shall speak in the name of YHWH and the word does not come to pass and is not fulfilled, that word was not spoken by YHWH. The prophet spoke it presumptuously; you should not fear him.

The narrative in 1 Kings 22, which concerns false prophecy, then ironically picks this up. King Ahab chides Micaiah to speak only the truth in the name of YHWH (v. 16; cf. 1 Chron. 18.15). Likewise, when the formula occurs in the book of Jeremiah it is because people are questioning whether Jeremiah is a true prophet and thus whether he should be feared (Jer. 26.16,20; 44.16). Even in Zech. 13.3, the use of this formula concerns false prophecy, namely those who 'lie in the name of YHWH'. Thus, it is apparent that the use of the formula 'to speak in the name of YHWH' in the Hebrew Bible depends on the legal formulation warning against false prophets in Deut. 18.22. The formula 'and YHWH spoke to' comes from the Pentateuch. There, the formula 'and YHWH spoke to' appears almost exclusively in the divine speech to Moses (94 times).79 Outside of the Pentateuch the formula occurs only three times, once in Joshua and twice in Chronicles.80 The formula prefaces the giving of legal revelations to Moses. Even where the formula is used with Moses' successor, Joshua, it is used to deliver legal revelation. This formula is never used by the classical prophets. The last formula, 'the angel of YHWH said to', reflects a type of mediation which is well known in late biblical prophecy and apocalyptic Zech. 1.1, 7; 7.1; Dan. 9.2. *?« mrr 131 'm occurs 75 times: cf. 1 Sam. 15.10; 2 Sam. 7.4; 1 Kgs 6.11; 13.20; 16.1; 21.17, 28; Isa. 38.4; Jer. 1.4, 11, 13; 2.1; 13.3, 8; 16.1; 18.5; 24.4; 28.12; 29.30; 32.26; 33.1, 19, 23; 34.12; 35.12; 36.27; 37.6; 42.7; 43.8; Ezek. 3.16; 6.1; 7.1; 11.14; 12.1, 8, 17, 21, 26; 13.1; 14.2, 12; 15.1; 16.1; 17.1, 11; 18.1; 20.2; 21.1, 6, 13, 23; 22.1, 17, 23; 23.1; 24.1, 15; 25.1; 27.1; 28.1, 11, 20; 30.1; 33.1, 2; 34.1; 35.1; 36.16; 37.15; 38.1; Jon. 1.1; 3.1; Zech. 4.8; 6.9; 7.8. 78. Deut. 18.22; 1 Kgs 22.16; Jer. 26.16, 20; 44.16; Zech. 13.3; 1 Chron. 21.19; 2 Chron. 18.15; 33.18. 79. For example Exod. 6.10, 13, 29; 13.1; 14.1; 16.11; 25.1; Lev. 5.14, 20; 6.1, 12, 17; Num. 1.1, 48; 2.1; 3.5, 11, 14, 44; Deut. 2.17; 32.48. 80. Cf. Josh. 20.1 (usually taken as P: see S.R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 9th edn, 1913], p. 112); 1 Chron. 21.9; 2 Chron. 33.10.

62


literature.81 The mediation of a divine revelation by an otherworldly being to a human recipient is one of the principal characteristics of apocalypses.82 This type of mediation can also be illustrated in biblical literature. For example, an angel serves as an intermediary between Zechariah and YHWH in Zech. 1.13-14: 13 YHWH answered by the angel who was speaking with me kind, comforting words. 14 And the angel who was speaking with me said to me, 'Proclaim, saying, Thus says YHWH of Hosts: I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great zeal'.

God no longer speaks directly to the prophet, but now speaks through the angel to the prophet. It is noteworthy that in spite of the use of an angelic mediator, the prophet still is instructed to use the messenger formula, 'Thus says YHWH'. Angelic messengers are also well known in classical biblical texts. For instance, an angel speaks to Abraham (Gen. 16.9, 10, 11; 22.11). An angelic messenger confronts Balaam (Num. 22.32, 34, 35). The angel of YHWH speaks to Joshua (Judg. 2.1, 4). The angel of YHWH speaks to Gideon (Judg. 6.12, 22). Angelic messengers even speak to prophets such as Elijah (1 Kgs 19.7; 2 Kgs 1.3, 15) and the prophet from Bethel (1 Kgs 13.18). However, angels do not mediate the prophetic word in the pre-exilic prophetic books like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea or Micah. They only mediate the prophetic word in the post-exilic books of Haggai (1.13) and Zechariah. In fact, the 'angel of YHWH' does not appear in the pre-exilic prophetic books.83 The use of angels to mediate the prophetic word then is characteristic of post-exilic prophecy. Intermediary Formulas in Chronicles. The intermediary formulas84 occur three times in the books of Chronicles. They fall into the same pattern: 'the divine word came to PN'. Twice this formula is used for 81. For example, Zech. 1.11; 1.12; 3.1, 5, 6; 12.8; Mai. 2.7. Many scholars would also argue that angelic mediation lies behind Isa. 40. Yet the text is opaque and no conclusive arguments should rely upon it. 82. See John Collins's definition, The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1987), p. 4. 83. The only exception is in a parallel narrative between Isaiah and 2 Kings (cf. Isa. 37.36 and 2 Kgs 19.35). There, the 'angel of Yahweh' appears as a destroying angel such as we see elsewhere in classical literature. 84. The formulas and exhibit the Chronicler's tendency to replace mrr with DM'PK. In fact, we should


63

the prophet Shemaiah (2 Chron. 11.2; 12.7) and once for the prophet Nathan. In all these cases the Chronicler appears to rely on his deuteronomic source for the inspiration formula. In 1 Chron. 17.3, the formula used for Nathan follows 2 Sam. 7.5, except that Chronicles has 'the word of God' where Samuel reads 'the word of YHWH'. These interchanges in the divine name are not substantive for our discussion (see n. 74). According to 2 Chron. 11.2, the word of YHWH comes to Shemaiah. This closely follows 1 Kgs 12.22, except for the change in the divine name. In 2 Chron. 12.7 the formula 'the word of YHWH came to' (-^K mrp—m rrn) prefaces Shemaiah's speech. Although this passage is not taken from the Deuteronomistic History, it is patterned after 1 Kgs 12.22-24 (111 Chron. 11.2-4; see further details in Chapter 2). Both 1 Kgs 12.22-24 and 2 Chron. 12.5-8 employ an intermediary formula and the messenger formula together for the prophet Shemaiah. The use of these two formulas together is characteristic of deuteronomic literature; they appear together over 30 times there and rarely outside of deuteronomic literature.85 The use of these two formulas is typical of deuteronomic literature, but atypical for Chronicles. Therefore, we may suggest that the Chronicler used 1 Kgs 12.22-24 (112 Chron. 11.2-4) as a formal pattern for creating the prophetic speech scene in 2 Chron. 12.5-8. The deuteronomic formula 'and PN spoke in the name of YHWH' (mrr DEQ PN ~Q-n) occurs three times in the books of Chronicles (1 Chron. 21.19; 2 Chron. 18.15; 33.18). One occurrence, 2 Chron. 18.15, borrows from the Chronicler's source (cf. 1 Kgs 22.16). As was pointed out, this formula derives from Deut. 18.22 and concerns false prophecy. Chronicles is apparently unaware of the classical use of this formula. In 1 Chron. 21.19, the formula refers to the word of the prophet Gad which David obeyed. In 2 Chron. 33.18, Manasseh apparently heeds the 'words of the seers who were speaking to him in the name of YHWH'. Although the formula is used only infrequently perhaps emend 1 Kings from DTi^n ~m to mm ~m on the basis of Chronicles and some of the versional evidence. For instance, the Septuagint reads Xoyoq Kxipiov (3 Kgdms 12.22), most likely reflecting a Vorlage which read mm nan. 85. For example, 2 Sam. 7.4-5; 1 Kgs 13.20-21; 21.17-19; Isa. 38.4-5; Jer. 2.12; 13.8-9; 24.4-5; 29.30-31; 30.4-5; 33.1-2, 19-20; 34.12-13; 35.12-13; 36.27-29; 37.6-7; 47.1-2; 49.34-35. The only exceptions seem to be Ezek. 21.6-8; Hag. 2.1011; Zech. 7.8-9. We may assume that the references in Haggai and Zechariah are post-deuteronomic.

64


outside of Chronicles, the contexts all refer to false prophecy. Chronicles clearly deviates from this classical usage because false prophecy is not an important issue in the book of Chronicles.86 The Mosaic formula 'and YHWH spoke to' occurs twice in Chronicles (1 Chron. 21.9; 2 Chron. 33.10). In both instances, the Chronicler employs the formula to replace a different formula in his Vorlage. In the speech of the prophet Gad (1 Chron. 21.9), 'and YHWH spoke to...' replaces the phrase 'and the word of YHWH came to...' (in 2 Sam. 24.11). In this case, the Chronicler replaces a formula well known in classical prophecy with a formula used for divine speech to Moses in the Pentateuch. It is not surprising, given the Chronicler's familiarity with the Mosaic Torah, that he naturally slips into using language from the Pentateuch. The use of 'and YHWH spoke to' in the narrative concerning King Manasseh is considerably more complex. In the Chronicler's narrative, God apparently speaks directly to Manasseh (2 Chron. 33.10). However, we are informed in Manasseh's source citation that God spoke to Manasseh through hozim (v. 18). It seems then that YHWH spoke to Manasseh through hozim, even though they are not specifically mentioned in v. 10. On the other hand, the narrative of 2 Kgs 21.10 states that YHWH spoke 'through his servants the nebi'im\ 2 Kgs 21.11-16 is then a specific oracle against Manasseh and the nation. The Chronicler has apparently altered the formula and dropped the oracle.87 He then used the general formula 'and YHWH spoke to'. However, the source citation indicates that Manasseh did not receive direct revelation from God. Both cases of the formula 'and YHWH spoke to' may be explained by the Chronicler's inadvertent use of a formula which he knew well from the Mosaic tradition. This development must be placed in the context of the growing importance of Torah in the post-exilic period.88 The last intermediation formula mentions an angel. The use of the 86. See, for example, my discussion of 2 Chron. 18 in Chapter 3, 'Rewriting Prophecies'. 87. McKenzie argues that the Chronicler relied on the Josianic version of the Deuteronomic History; see The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History. The redaction of this passage has been the subject of extended debate; see R. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1981), pp. 65-69. 88. See the studies of J. Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler's History Work (BJS, 196; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, 124-52; M. Fishbane, 'Torah', EM 8 (1982), pp. 469-83 (Hebrew).


65

'angel of YHWH' to mediate the divine word to the prophet Gad compares with post-exilic prophetic and apocalyptic literature. The Chronicler develops and expands the role of the angelic mediator in his narrative. Thus, in 2 Sam. 24.17-18 God sends the prophet Gad to David: 17 And when David saw the angel who was striking the people, he said to YHWH, 'It was I who sinned and I who erred, but these are the sheep— what have they done? Let your hand be against me and my house. 18 And Gad came to David that day and he said to him, 'go and set up an altar for YHWH on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite'.

The Chronicler revises this narrative, but a version of 2 Samuel lies beneath his account.89 Chronicles describes the intermediation process in v. 18: And the angel of YHWH told Gad to say to David that David should go and set up an altar to YHWH on the threshing floor of Oman the Jebusite.

The Chronicler interprets his Vorlage, apparently based on notions of mediation in his own day. Williamson suggests that this case, along with the interpreting angel of Zechariah's visions, reflects 'a general refinement of the period in the understanding of the mediation of God's word, a refinement which was continued to a much greater degree in later literature, notably the Targums'.90 We must add that this development is an isolated case in Chronicles which is only useful for showing that the Chronicler was aware of a 'general refinement in the period'. Since the angel already appears in the Chronicler's Vorlage, the Chronicler employed him as a prophetic intermediary, according to the understanding of his period. However, in other cases the Chronicler does not 89. 4QSama has shown that the Chronicler's version is not identical with 2 Samuel. Frank Cross suggests, based on his analysis of 4QSama, that 2 Sam. 24.16b-17a was lost to haplography . This analysis has been further advanced by Cross's students; see W. Lemke, 'The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler's History', HTR 58 (1965), pp. 355-57; E. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM, 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 156-59; McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, pp. 55-58, 67-71. Also see discussion by P. Dion, 'The Angel with the Drawn Sword (II Chron. 21,16): An Exercise in Restoring the Balance of Text Criticism and Attention to Context', ZAW 97 (1985), pp. 114-17. Dion notes, 'After 4QSama as well as before its discovery, the Chronicler's innovations retain all their magnitude, which a purely text-critical approach should not be allowed to obfuscate'. See further the discussion of 4QSama, MT, LXX, and Chronicles in Chapter 3. 90. Chronicles, p. 148. See Japhet, The Ideology of Chronicles, pp. 139-49.

66


introduce angelic mediators where his sources did not have them. Thus, the Chronicler does not fabricate, but rather reinterprets. In sum, the Chronicler employs 'intermediary formulas' with professional prophets (for example, Nathan, Shemaiah, Gad) who have prophetic role labels (nabf, hozeh, 'man of God') and not with the Levites, priests or other messengers. In all the narratives using intermediary formulas, the Chronicler relies on sources and, in most cases, he is directly dependent on them. Yet in some cases the Chronicler either alters the formula in his source, patterns his own composition on a source, or reinterprets the mediation process in his source based on his own post-exilic perspective. The formula 'to speak in the name of YHWH' is always used in the context of false prophecy in the Deuteronomistic History, but is used for true prophecy in Chronicles. Chronicles, in fact, shows little interest in false prophecy. We begin to perceive here that the Chronicler's own views of prophecy, inspiration and intermediation color his transmission of the sources. Possession Formulas The term ruah, 'spirit', characterizes the possession formulas.91 The spirit 'comes upon' (-^ nrrn) or 'possesses, clothes' (rrra^) an individual. The formulas then describe a divine spirit's influence over a person who delivers the 'inspired' message. This supposed contact touches upon the psychological state of these individuals.92 The use of the root 'to clothe' (Vcn1?) to describe the spirit's inspiration is especially suggestive of ecstatic prophecy. However, the contexts of these possession formulas in Chronicles suggest no mantic frenzy or suspension of voluntary action 91. Wilson defines possession as 'a cultural theory that explains how contact takes place between the supernatural and the natural worlds': Prophecy and Society, p. 34. On possession theory in general, see E. Bourguignon, 'The Self, the Behavioral Environment, and the Theory of Spirit Possession', in M. Spiro (ed.), Context and Meaning in Cultural Anthropology (New York: Free Press, 1965), pp. 40-43. P. Michaelsen has a useful summary of scholarship, 'Ecstasy and Possession in Ancient Israel: A Review of Some Recent Contributions', SJOT2 (1989), pp. 28-54. 92. Despite the meagerness of the evidence and the difficulty of the sources, the psychic state of the prophets has received considerable attention in the scholarly literature. See Michaelsen, 'Ecstasy and Possession in Ancient Israel', pp. 29-27; also Wilson, Prophecy and Society, pp. 32-41; S.B. Parker, 'Possession Trance and Prophecy in Pre-Exilic Israel', VT28 (1978), pp. 271-85; J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962).


67

which are characteristic of possession.93 Of course, we must be wary of our source. The Chronicler's descriptions should not be considered primary evidence for the practice of prophecy in pre-exilic Israel. Possession Formulas in the Hebrew Bible. The possession formulas are not typical of the classical prophets, even though some scholars have assumed them to be a 'prophetic-type phrase'.94 Outside of Chronicles the expression 'the spirit clothed' (non1? rm) occurs only once and the formula 'and the spirit was upon him' (rm rby Tim) appears five times.95 The possession formula in the Hebrew Bible usually occurs in a military context.96 In Judg. 6.34, a possession formula initiates Gideon's call to arms: 'and the spirit of YHWH clothed Gideon and he blew the ram's horn'. Similarly, the formula 'and the spirit of YHWH came upon him' marks the beginning of the ascendancy to leadership for Jephthah (11.29) and Othniel (3.10). Another formula illustrates the importance of spirit possession for military leaders. As part of Saul's ascendancy to kingship, Samuel instructs him to go up to Gibeah.97 He meets some prophets playing music and 'a divine spirit rushed upon Saul and he acted as a prophet with them' (1 Sam. 10.10).98 Although this 'divine spirit' is apparently positive, at another juncture in the Saul narratives we are informed that an 'evil divine spirit' caused Saul to act like a prophet (1 Sam. 18.10). The spirit also inspires Saul militarily when 93. See Michaelson, 'Ecstasy and Possession', pp. 29-35. 94. For example, Mason, Preaching the Tradition, p. 46. 95. Cf. Num. 24.2; Judg. 3.10; 6.34; 11.29; 1 Sam. 19.20, 23. 96. Some scholars have argued that a bifurcation of the office of judge resulted in two separate offices: the king and the prophet. Hanson writes: 'the spiritual responsibility of discerning Yahweh's will and translating the implications of his cosmic rule into the categories of history fell to the new office of the nabi' ("the one called"), whereas the political responsibility of carrying out the action required by this translation was invested in the office of nagid, or military leader' (The Dawn of the Apocalyptic, p. 15). Also see Albright, 'Samuel and the Beginnings of the Prophetic Movement', pp. 42-65. 97. The redaction of the Saul narratives was apparently a long process. However, it is unlikely that the Chronicler was aware of this process. 98. Hebrew, CDim tojrn rn^ rrn r^ n^m. Cf. 1 Sam. 19.20, 23. The parallel accounts of Saul's prophetic activity in 1 Samuel have long been a crux for redaction critics; see P.K. McCarter, / Samuel (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), pp. 183-84, 326-31. See below under 'enactment formula' for a discussion of the verb 'to act as a prophet'. In 2 Kgs 3.15, the hand of Yahweh comes on Elisha when music is played and Elisha prophesies.

68


Jabesh-Gilead is attacked (1 Sam. 11.6). From the narrative point of view, this victory at Jabesh-Gilead cements Saul's leadership over the tribes of Israel. Later in the narrative, we are told that 'the spirit of YHWH departed from Saul' (1 Sam. 16.14). The departure of the spirit from Saul marks the beginning of David's rise to leadership (cf. 1 Sam. 16). In the Saul narratives, the spirit's inspiration is a precursor to military leadership. In this respect, the Saul narratives are similar to Judges." However, another aspect of spirit possession in the Saul narratives leads to 'acting like a prophet', and Saul's ecstatic activity inspired the proverb: 'Is even Saul among the nebi'ini> (1 Sam. 19.24). Yet even when Saul 'acts like a prophet' this refers to his ecstatic activities and not to the delivering of oracles. The only example of the role of spirit possession in delivering oracles is illustrated by the foreign soothsayer, Balaam. One of Balaam's oracles in Num. 24.2-3 is prefaced by a possession formula: 2 And Balaam lifted up his eyes and he saw Israel encamped according to their tribes and the spirit of God came upon him. 3 And he took up his discourse and said, 'an oracle of Balaam son of Beor, the oracle of a man whose eye is opened'.

Balaam's oracle describes the inception of the oracle, Balaam 'lifts up his eyes', then a divine spirit inspires him to 'lift up his oracle'. However, Balaam is never given the title of nabi' or any traditional prophetic title by the biblical authors. He is called 'the augur' (Josh. 13.22), one who seeks out omens (Num. 24.1). Thus, Balaam was not a traditional Israelite prophet, even though we may surmise that he was inspired by YHWH (for example, Num. 22.8). The role of the spirit in Ezekiel, while not employing the exact terminology of Chronicles, offers the closest parallels to the use of the spirit in Chronicles. This is not surprising since Ezekiel of the three major prophets is closest chronologically to Chronicles. Moreover, the fact that Ezekiel is called 'the priest' (Ezek. 1.3) and the title nabi' is not 99. Another passage which illustrates the close relationship between the spirit's anointing and military leadership is the 'messianic' oracle in Isa. 11.1-2: 'But a shoot shall go forth from the stump of Jesse... a branch shall sprout from his roots. The spirit of Yahweh shall rest upon him, a spirit of wisdom and understanding... a spirit of counsel and might, a spirit of knowledge and reverence for Yahweh'. We can surmise that the anointing of the spirit played an important role in claims to leadership in ancient Israel; see Brettler, God is King, pp. 125-35, for the Israelite royal enthronement ritual.


69

employed for Ezekiel would seem to offer a parallel to the spiritinspiration of the priest Zechariah in Chronicles.100 Although none of the possession formulas in Chronicles appears in Ezekiel, the spirit is nonetheless critical to Ezekiel's ministry. The most common expression is 'the spirit [or wind] lifted me up' (for example, ']npm intw] mm; Ezek. 3.14).101 The spirit evidently takes the concrete form of a hand; for instance, in Ezek. 8.3, 'and the form of a hand reached out and took me' Oinp-'i T man rfren). The spirit seems to function as a kind of heavenly escort service for Ezekiel. Sometimes, the 'hand of YHWH' is upon the prophet and the prophet either is transported, sees a vision, or prophesies.102 This represents a more anthropomorphic description of inspiration than found in Chronicles. On one occasion, Ezekiel reports that the spirit 'fell' upon him and told him to prophesy (11.5): And the spirit of YHWH fell upon me, and he said to me, 'Say, "Thus says YHWH", this is what you shall say'.

The spirit has several functions in the book of Ezekiel. Yet there is a marked difference between the function of the spirit in Ezekiel and Chronicles. The use of the spirit in Ezekiel shows marked apocalyptic tendencies since the spirit takes Ezekiel on journeys and this is not part of spirit-inspiration in Chronicles.103 Perhaps, then, the exilic book of Ezekiel represents a transition stage in Israelite notions of spirit inspiration.104 In sum, the possession formulas are not typical of classical prophecy. They are prominent in the ad hoc inspiration of military heroes, most notably the 'judges'. A few pre-exilic texts indicate that inspiration by 100. This observation is made by Auld, 'Prophets through the Looking Glass', pp. 5-6. 101. Cf. Ezek. 3.12; 8.3; 11.1, 24; 43.5. Weinfeld suggests that the phrase im 13 K3 used in Ezek. 2.2 and 3.24 is characteristic of mantic frenzy known in other ancient Near Eastern cultures: 'Ancient Near Eastern Patterns in Prophetic Literature', VT 27 (1977), pp. 178-95. However, the context suggests that this phrase is akin to 'the spirit lifted me up', for example Ezek. 3.24, irn '3 torn '^ri *PJ> 'noam, 'the spirit came upon me and set me on my feet'. 102. In Ezek. 1.3 and 40.1, Ezekiel sees a vision. In Ezek. 3.22, Ezekiel prophecies. In Ezek. 37.1 and 40.1, this expression also involves transportation by the spirit. 103. See Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, p. 4. 104. An important analogy may be drawn to M. Rooker's discussion of Ezekiel's language. Rooker argues that Ezekiel represents a transition stage between classical and late biblical Hebrew (Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel [JSOTSup, 90; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990]).

70


the spirit was associated with prophecy, but these are not classical prophetic texts. The role of the spirit markedly increases in the book of Ezekiel. Still, the possession formulas do not generally preface prophetic utterances, but rather the spirit takes the prophet-priest on journeys and Ezekiel sees visions. Possession Formulas in Chronicles. Chronicles uses two possession formulas.105 The first formula vividly describes the spirit's possession of the person: 'the spirit clothed...' The second is less vivid: 'the spirit came upon...' The first formula appears twice in Chronicles. The spirit envelops Amasai, a soldier (1 Chron. 12.19), and Zechariah, a priest (2 Chron. 24.20). The latter formula also occurs twice (2 Chron. 15.1; 20.14), with Azariah, son of Oded, and Jehaziel, a Levite. In all these cases, the individual whom the spirit possesses does not bear a prophetic role label. Thus, the possession formulas are used with priests, Levites and soldiers as an indication of divine authority, but not with prophets. The formula 'the spirit clothed' does not evince the characteristics of ecstatic prophecy which might be suspected. In Chronicles, this formula first prefaces the short speech of Amasai, a soldier who pledges his allegiance to David. In the other occurrence, the spirit clothes Zechariah, a priest who condemns the people's abandoning of the commandments of God. In both cases, the spirit's inspiration is followed by a short but sober speech. There is no indication that the movement of the spirit was induced by the use of music, as we see, for example, in the Saul narratives. In fact, in 2 Chron. 24.20, after the spirit comes upon Zechariah, the priest begins his speech with the classical messenger formula, 'Thus says YHWH'. The formula 'the spirit came upon him' introduces the speech of Azariah, son of Oded (2 Chron. 15.1). The identity of this character is difficult to ascertain. No precise information is given and his father is unknown. A textual corruption in v. 8 further complicates the issue: And when Asa heard these words and the prophecy Oded the prophet [sic]... 105. The colophon at the end of Chronicles (2 Chron. 36.22-23) might be added to these possession formulas. There we read that 'YHWH roused the spirit of Cyrus' (enis mi n« mrr Ti?n). However, this seems to be more of a prodding to action than a specific inspiration of the words of Cyrus's proclamation. On the use of TOT, cf. Isa. 41.2, 25; 45.13; Jer. 50.9; 51.1, 11; Zech. 4.1; Dan. 11.2; 2 Chron. 21.16.


71

The Hebrew phrase train *nr ntnan, 'and the prophecy Oded the prophet', has two problems. First, to be grammatically correct the verse should read train Tru ntrian, 'and the prophecy of Oded the prophet', with ntrai in the construct. The absolute, ntr,an, indicates that train nu, 'Oded the prophet', is a later gloss.106 A second problem concerns the context. It is Azariah and not Oded who gives the prophecy in v. 1. The versions try to harmonize this difficulty in v. 8. The LXXA reads ml tTiv TCpo(pT|T£iav Aâpiocc; toft TcpocpTiToi), 'and the prophecy of Azariah the prophet'.107 The Vulgate and Peshitta read 'and the prophecy which Azariah the son of Oded the prophet'. Emendations based on these versions are unconvincing. They leave unexplained the syntax of ntrian and are obvious attempts to harmonize the text. Thus, the contextual evidence also would suggest that train ~ns is a later gloss.108 Azariah, in fact, may have been the name of the high priest during the time of Asa. According to 1 Kgs 4.2, Zadok was high priest during the time of Solomon and Azariah followed him; this would have made Azariah the name of the high priest in the time of Asa.109 Paponomy, 106. For example, Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, p. 244. See also Curtis, Chronicles, p. 385; Williamson, Chronicles, p. 269. Micheel notes that in the other two examples of the spirit coming upon Jahaziel and Zechariah neither is given a prophetic title, and thus she concludes, 'Aufgrund dieser Beobachtung ist es sehr wahrscheinlich, daB die Nennung Asarjas ohne Titel urspriinglich ist' (Die Seher- und Prophetenuberlieferungen in der Chronik, p. 46). 107. The LXXB reads mi TTIV npoqvntEiav A8a8 iot>rcpo(pr|TO\>,following the MT. 108. Wilson gives a plausible explanation of this gloss (Prophecy and Society, pp. 130-31). He points to the Aramaic inscription of Zakir, the king of Hamath and Lu'ash (KAI202; translated in ANET, pp. 655-56). Ross points out the close similarities betweeen this inscription and biblical motifs, 'Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari', pp. 1-28. The inscription relates that a coalition of kings besieged one of Zakir's cities. Zakir prays to his god. The god answers him 'through seers and through intermediaries' (]~ns TDi ]'tn T[3]). The seers (]'m) can be related to the hozeh in Hebrew and the parallel term 'dd also appears to be some kind of intermediary. Wilson suggests a connection with the name Iddo ( from Vila) which is a name frequently used for prophets in the Old Testament (cf. 2 Chron. 12.15; 13.22; 28.811; Zech. 1.1; Ezra 5.1; 6.14). In addition, the root 'dd occurs in Ugaritic, probably with the meaning 'to give a message' (CTA 4, 3, 10-11; CTA 4, 7, 45-47; see Ross's treatment of the Ugaritic examples: 'Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari', pp. 5-6). 109. Josephus's chronology of the high priests would also make Azariah the name

72


that is, the practice of naming the son after the grandfather,110 also suggests that the name of the high priest would have been Azariah. Paponomy was practiced among the high priests and the name Azariah is closely associated with lineage of the high priest. According to the Chronicler's genealogies, there were three high priests named Azariah in the pre-exilic period (1 Chron. 5.36).111 Azariah's namesake in 2 Chron. 26.18 is a priest, probably the high priest, who confronts Uzziah when he tries to burn incense in the temple. Another high priest named Azariah who officiated during the reign of Hezekiah apparently does not correspond to any priest in the Chronicler's high priestly genealogy; however, he is two generations removed from the Azariah who confronts Uzziah (cf. 2 Chron. 31.10, 13; 1 Chron. 5.35-41). Given the reference to Azariah in 1 Kgs 4.2 and the custom of paponomy, this suggests that Azariah son of Oded may have been a priest. This suggestion must be tentative. Yet it is noteworthy that another character who also has a possession formula, Zechariah, is also the high priest (cf. 2 Chron. 24.20-22). The possession formula, 'the spirit of YHWH came upon him', also opens the speech of Jahaziel, a Levite (2 Chron. 20.14). In contrast to the enigmatic Azariah, Jahaziel has a long pedigree: 'Jahaziel, son of Zechariah, son of Benaiah, son of Jeiel, son of Mattaniah, the Levite, of the sons of Asaph'. So far as we can say, the possession formulas in Chronicles are not employed with prophets, but rather with Levites, priests and soldiers. All in all, the possession formulas in Chronicles cannot be considered typical of classical biblical prophets. In fact, the use of these formulas in Judges and 1 Samuel is related to divine anointing for leadership. Thus, the Chronicler's use of possession formulas describing the spirit's place in inspired 'prophetic' speeches is a development of the type of spirit inspiration in Ezekiel. In spite of many scholars' assumption that these possession formulas are typical of biblical prophecy, the notion of the of the high priest during Asa's reign (Ant. 10.151); however, in his-narrative Josephus follows the tradition in the LXX A which makes Azariah a prophet (Ant. 8.295). 110. On paponomy, see P.M. Cross, 'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', JBL 94 (1975): pp. 6-7; and see R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven, 1977), pp. 114-18, on the use of ancestral names in the ancient Near East. 111. 1 Chron. 5.36b is misplaced, and should be after v. 34a; cf. Rudolph, Chronikbucher, p. 52; Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 128-29.


73

spirit coming upon the prophet is quite restricted in the Hebrew Bible. This same observation was made S. Mowinckel in his investigation of the spirit in classical prophecy: A study of the conception of the spirit of YHWH in the Old Testament has resulted in the to me surprising conclusion that the pre-exilic reforming prophets never in reality express a consciousness that their prophetic endowment and powers are due to the possession by or any action of the spirit o/YHWH, rvfh yahweh.n2

In the Old Testament, then, the notion that 'the spirit came upon me' is not a reflex of prophetic speech. The studied avoidance of the 'spirit' in classical prophecy may in part be explained by the close association between the spirit and ecstatic prophetic practices. The association is illustrated in the account of Saul's prophetic activity. This type of ecstatic prophecy was rejected, for the most part, by the classical prophets. In Chronicles, quite a different picture of the possession formulas emerges. The possession formulas do not preface the speeches of prophets, but rather the speeches of soldiers, Levites and priests. These figures are 'inspired', but not in the way of the classical prophets. The possession formulas, in contrast to the messenger formulas, appear only in non-synoptic passages. These units are all the Chronicler's nonsynoptic compositions. The use of these formulas to preface inspired speeches is a unique development in the books of Chronicles. An anthropological analogy from Mari can be useful to explain the Chronicler's description of spirit possession.113 William Moran notes that the verb namhu in Akkadian indicates fury and madness. Moran suggests two explanations for the use of namhu in the Mari letters:

112. S. Mowinckel, '"The Spirit" and the "Word" in the Pre-Exilic Reforming Prophets', p. 199. Mowinckel's study examines not just the possession formulas, but the use of the 'spirit of YHWH' throughout the Hebrew Bible. Coggins suggests that the idea of the spirit guiding holy men's actions was an early idea that was revived from the time of Ezekiel onwards (Chronicles, p. 203). Von Rad also notes the curious absence of the spirit in the prophet's ministry (The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions, pp. 56-57). 113. For a review of the literature, see J. Craghan, 'Mari and its Prophets: The Contributions of Mari to the Understanding of Biblical Prophecy', BTB 5 (1975), pp. 32-55.

74

The Word of God in Transition it is possible that the verb came to be used conventionally of all prophetic outbursts by the laity, or that it actually had a broader meaning, either originally or secondarily, 'to become beside oneself, which like Greek ekstasis could be applied to a wide range of psychic abnormalities.114

The use of namhu to describe the prophetic activities of the laity as opposed to the professional prophets makes an interesting analogy with the possession formulas in Chronicles. In both cases, the description of possession occurs only of characters without prophetic titles. The possession formulas in Chronicles are a convention used for the prophetic speeches of non-professional prophets. In sum, although many scholars have categorized the priests and Levites in Chronicles as prophets, the possession formulas indicate that the Chronicler perceived a difference between these groups. The first group corresponds more closely to the classical prophets. The latter group should be seen more in the context of post-exilic 'prophets'. For instance, the book of Malachi identifies the inspired speaker as 'my messenger' rather than with a traditional prophetic title, for example, nabi'. It is unclear to what extent figures like Malachi, Haggai or Zechariah were 'career prophets' since their prophecies are accompanied by no 'prophetic call' narratives like those of Elisha, Hosea, Isaiah or Jeremiah. We may term these figures 'messengers' or perhaps 'temporary prophets' owning to their transient role.115 As the analogy from Mari illustrates, the 'temporary prophet' had to make a claim to divine authority whereas the career prophet had an already established claim. In Chronicles, the possession formulas represent a claim to divine authority. They are used in cases of ad hoc prophetic inspiration of nonprofessional prophets. Enactment Formulas The Chronicler also employs what may be termed an 'enactment formula' in his work. The hithpael verb torn 'to act as a prophet' occurs four times in two contexts in Chronicles. The denominative use of the hithpael conjugation with the root V»3] can be translated 'to act

114. W. Moran, 'New Evidence from Mari on the History of Prophecy', Bib 50 (1969), p. 27. 115. Amit coined the term 'prophets of the hour' (nyon -K'a:), 'The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Theology of the Books of Chronicles', pp. 113-33.


75

as a prophet'116 or 'sich als ] gebarden'.117 This form may be compared to 'to act sick' (nbnnn), as in 2 Sam. 13.5 where Amnon feigns sickness to trick his stepsister Tamar.118 In Chronicles, three occurrences of this verb (2 Chron. 18.7, 9, 17) are dependent on 1 Kings 22 (vv. 8, 10, 18), leaving only one case where Chronicles uses 'to act as a prophet' in a non-synoptic narrative. In 2 Chron. 20.37, the Chronicler uses the verb 'to act as a prophet' in his refashioning of the account of Jehoshaphat's failed shipping alliance. The Enactment Formula in the Hebrew Bible. The verb 'to act as a prophet' occurs 24 times outside of Chronicles. Many of these cases refer to false prophets and have the sense 'to pose as a prophet'. This is illustrated in the accusation against Jeremiah in Jer. 29.24-27: 24 And [Jeremiah] shall say to Shemaiah the Nehelamite, 25 'thus says the Lord of Hosts, God of Israel, saying, "Because you sent letters in your name to all the people who are in Jerusalem and to Zephaniah son of Maaseiah and to all the priests, saying, 26 'YHWH made you a priest in place of Jehoiada the priest in order to officiate in the house of God over every madman and everyone who poses as a prophet (K33nqi). And you shall put him in stocks and the collar. 27 So now, why haven't you rebuked Jeremiah the Anathothite, who poses as a prophet (fcOjriQrO among you?""

The verb 'to act as a prophet' is placed in parallel with 'a madman'. The sense of 'to act as a prophet' is pejorative, namely 'to pose as a prophet'. The implication of false prophecy is often suggested by the context of the verb. For instance, in Ezek. 13.17 the prophet is commanded to prophesy against those who act as prophets by their own inspiration: 116. B.E. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbruns, 1990), pp. 426-32. 117. KB3, p. 623; see also GKC §54d; Wilson, 'Prophecy and Ecstasy: A Reexamination', pp. 329-36. 118. The hithpael is sometimes confused with the niphal form since the tav of the prefix -nn can be assimilated into the nun. The form taan is common in Ezekiel (26 times), and is apparently a niphal; cf. KB3, p. 622. There are at least two examples of the assimilation of the tav into the nun, which would indicate a hithpael: Jer. 26.20,1K33H, and Ezek. 37.10, Titusm. These examples suggest the possibility that the grapheme loan may be sometimes mispointed as a niphal, perhaps because of the pejorative connotations of the hithpael form; see further GKC §54c and Waltke and O'Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, § 21.2.3c and bibliography cited in the notes on pp. 30-33.

76

The Word of God in Transition And you, mortal, set your face against the daughters of your people, those who are acting as prophets (niKâron) from their own hearts and prophesy against them.

Similarly, in 1 Kings 22 (III Chron. 18), the question is who is a true prophet among those who are acting like prophets (cf. vv. 24, 28). The enactment formula is usually pejorative, but some cases suggest that the pejorative nuance may be a result of its context. For example, in the incident where Eldad and Medad are accused of 'acting as prophets in the camp' (Num. 11.27), Moses refuses to restrain them and exclaims, 'Would that all YHWH's people were prophets!' (v. 29). The accusation made against Eldad and Medad implies a pejorative attitude in 'acting as prophets', but Moses' response reverses the accusation. Moreover, Moses associates the role label nabi' with the verbal conjugation torn in the statement, 'Would that all YHWH's people were nebi'im'. Even in the case of Saul (cited above), Saul 'acts like a prophet' when the spirit induces him. Saul apparently 'acts as a prophet' both under YHWH's influence and an evil spirit's influence (1 Sam. 10.10-11; 18.10). As a consequence of Saul's prophetic 'acting', the proverb arises, 'Is even Saul among the nebi'imT (1 Sam. 10.11; 19.24). Biblical texts repeatedly associate the verb 'to act as a prophet' with the role label nabi'. The contexts often ask the question, 'Is this person a prophet?' The enactment formula assumes that a person is claiming to be a nabi', although in many cases the biblical authors would have considered the person a false prophet. The Enactment Formula in Chronicles. The implications for 'to act as a prophet' in 2 Chron. 20.37 may now be raised. In 2 Chron. 20.37 the Chronicler has a character named Eliezer son of Dodawyahu make a brief appearance to prophesy that Jehoshaphat's alliance with Ahaziah, the king of Israel, incited YHWH to destroy the ships which Jehoshaphat was building (see below, Chapter 2). Eliezer has no title and his lineage gives no clue as to his identity.119 The hometown of Eliezer, Mareshah, recalls the canonical prophet Micah who was from Mareshah (cf. Mic. 1.1) and the Chronicler's story of the Ethiopian invasion and battle at Mareshah (cf. 2 Chron. 14.8). This evidence is indeed meager. Yet the 119. The name Dodawyahu (inm) is very unusual, occurring only here in the Hebrew Bible. The transcriptions in the LXX (8w8ia) and the Peshitta (rm) witness to the obscurity of this name. However, these versions provide no further evidence for the identity of Eliezer. See further Mason, Preaching the Tradition, p. 73.


77

enactment formula at least assumes that Eliezer is acting in the role of a prophet, even if he does not actually have a prophetic role label. The actions of Eliezer conform to a typical prophetic role in Chronicles, namely, explaining the nexus between actions and consequences.120 There is no question that the Chronicler considered Eliezer a 'true prophet'. The Chronicler's use of the enactment formula raises the question of 'true' and 'false' prophecy. Outside of Chronicles, the use of the verbal form 'to act as a prophet' is usually in the context of false prophecy. This can be illustrated in 2 Chronicles 18, parallel with 1 Kings 22. In 1 Kings 22, the verb 'to act as a prophet' underscores the question who is the true prophet: Ahab's prophets or Micaiah? However, in the context of the books of Chronicles, this episode concerns Jehoshaphat's alliance and not false prophecy (see the discussion in Chapter 2).121 The Chronicler seems unaware of the issue of false prophecy which hovers around the use of the enactment formula in biblical literature. This 'ignorance' is reflected in the Chronicler's employment of the verb 'to act as a prophet' to describe Eliezer's prophecy against Jehoshaphat. Eliezer is depicted as a prophet and the prophetic title is apparently implied in the enactment formula. Summary The most significant innovation in the Chronicler's inspiration formulas is the use of possession formulas. Possession formulas never preface prophetic speeches in earlier biblical literature. Chronicles uses these formulas to preface speeches of non-prophets. This suggests that the Chronicler made a conscious distinction between the role of the prophets (hozeh and nabt') and non-prophets (priests and officials). The Chronicler's use of the messenger formula also modifies the classical formulation. In Chronicles, the messenger usually delivers the message in the third person (in the messenger's voice) rather than the first person (in the sender's voice). This is a marked deviation from classical prophecy. The Chronicler also deviates from the classical formula by adding a prepositional phrase 'to you'. The Chronicler's use of the enactment formula ('to act as a prophet') 120. See 2 Chron. 12.2-9; 16.7-9 (see discussion of Eliezer in Chapter 2). See further I.L. Seeligmann, 'Hebraische Erzahlung und biblische Geschichtsschreibung', TZ 18 (1962), pp. 305-25. 121. See Williamson, Chronicles, pp. 284-85.

78


and the intermediary formula 'to speak in the name of YHWH' deviate from classical usage. Both formulas are employed elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in the context of false prophecy. 'To act as a prophet' implies a claim to divine authority. The person who 'plays the role of a prophet' claims for himself the role label nabi', although this claim is often questioned. The Chronicler's use of the expression 'to act as a prophet' is unique. The Chronicler uses the verb for Eliezer who clearly delivers a legitimate prophecy; however, implications of false prophecy usually surround 'acting like a prophet'. Similarly, the formula 'to speak in the name of YHWH' elsewhere in biblical literature emphasizes speaking in YHWH's name as opposed to the names of other gods. While the emphasis on whose name one speaks in is indicative of the problem of true and false prophecy which surrounds this formula in biblical literature, Chronicles is unaware of the problem. Chronicles' use of these formulas demonstrates that false prophecy was not an issue to the post-exilic author. The influence of the Chronicler's own notions of prophecy upon his depiction of prophecy during the Israelite monarchy is most obvious in the use of an apocalyptic mediation formula, 'the angel of YHWH said to'. The angelic mediation occurs only in the late prophets (for example, Zechariah) and apocalyptic works. The Chronicler enlarges the role of the angelic mediator in 1 Chronicles 21. As 4QSama has shown us, this angelic figure was part of Chronicles' Vorlage. However, it is also clear that the Chronicler has developed the role of the angel. The contribution of 4QSama is significant here. It demonstrates that the Chronicler works from sources and that his own post-exilic understanding colors his interpretation of those sources. In this case, post-exilic conceptions of prophetic mediation find their way into pre-exilic narratives. The Chronicler also betrays his post-exilic milieu in his use of the intermediary formula 'And YHWH said to...' This formula derives from the Pentateuch and is never used in the prophetic books. The Chronicler thus uses a formula which he knew well from the Mosaic tradition as a prophetic inspiration formula. Indeed, from the use of this Mosaic formula we may infer that the Mosaic law had great importance to the Chronicler. In sum, the developments and innovations in inspiration formulas used in the book of Chronicles reflect the author's own day and thereby open a window into his thought and his circle of tradents. The Chronicler used classical prophetic formulas ('thus says YHWH' and 'the


79

word of YHWH came to') with those who have prophetic role labels. On the other hand, he used non-classical formulas (for example, 'the spirit clothed') for figures who did not have prophetic role labels. This indicates that a distinction was made between 'prophets' and other figures who 'prophesied'. We may now peer through another window, namely the prophetic speeches in Chronicles—a window which has been opened for us by this analysis of prophetic role labels and inspiration formulas.

Chapter 2 PROPHETIC SPEECHES

A variety of scholars have already undertaken analyses of the formcritical aspects of the speeches in Chronicles.1 This analysis takes a new approach to the prophetic speeches. It will group the speech scenes according to the prophetic titles and inspiration formulas discussed in Chapter 1. This will facilitate an analysis of the different roles of the speakers and the prophetic speeches. Mark Throntveit has observed that 'attempts to analyze the speeches contained in the book of Chronicles have tended to place indiscriminately all the occurrences of direct discourse together in one category, or at best, to differentiate only between speech and prayer'.2 Gerhard Von Rad, for instance, blurs differences in genre when he examines both speeches and prayers under the rubric of the 'Levitical Sermon'. He is followed in this respect by James Newsome. Otto Ploger also confuses 1. R. Rigsby, The Historiography of the Speeches and Prayers in the Books of Chronicles' (ThD dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1973); J. Newsome, 'The Chronicler's View of Prophecy' (PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1973); Mason, Preaching the Tradition; R. Braun, 'Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of I Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles', JBL 95 (1976), pp. 581-90 (which summarizes Braun's ThD dissertation, The Significance of I Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Structure and Theology of the Work of the Chronicler' [Concordia Seminary, 1971]; O. Ploger, 'Reden und Gebete im deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtswerk', in Aus der Spatzeit des Alien Testaments (repr.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975 [1957]), pp. 50-66; H. Macy, The Sources of the Books of Chronicles: An Assessment' (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1975), devotes his third chapter to The Prophetic Judgement Speech in Chronicles', pp. 64-75; de Vries, 'Forms of Prophetic Address', pp. 15-36; Throntveit, When Kings Speak. 2. When Kings Speak, p. 127.

2. Prophetic Speeches

81

distinctions in speaker by treating royal and non-royal speeches together. Simon de Vries treats prophets, priests and Levites together and thereby mixes the speakers in the prophetic addresses. Braun and Throntveit's studies provide a good model. They separate royal from non-royal speech. Further distinction also needs to be made within the corpus of prophetic speech. Although all prophetic speech makes a claim to divine authority, in Chapter 1 1 showed that the Chronicler uses different inspiration formulas to distinguish between speeches by those labeled prophets (nabi', hozeh, ro'eh) and other inspired messengers. The speakers in Chronicles then can be divided into two groups: 'Speakers with Prophetic Titles' and 'Inspired Speakers without Prophetic Titles' . This division finds an internal basis in Chronicles from the reference to both the rfbi'im and 'messengers' (no^n) in 2 Chron. 36.16. Prophets and Messengers The first category of prophetic speakers, the 'prophets', are easily identifiable since they bear a label which indicates their role. The other prophetic speakers in the book of Chronicles are indicated by inspiration formulas which ascribe divine authority to the speakers. These other inspired speakers form an eclectic group. Under what rubric can we group a priest, a Levite, a soldier and an Egyptian pharaoh? Did the Chronicler have a term for this group? The range of these figures certainly is broader than temple personnel. Although many scholars have suggested that the Chronicler tries to extend prophecy to the Levites, it should be clear that this analysis does not do justice to the full range of figures who prophesy in Chronicles. The term which Chronicles itself suggests for all these figures is 'messengers' . The epilogue to the books of Chronicles records three avenues by which YHWH communicated his word: divine messengers, the Torah and the nebi'im. In 2 Chron. 36.15-16 we read, 15 And YHWH the God of their fathers sent to them his messengers continually, because he had compassion on his people and his dwelling place. 16 However, they were mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and taunting his nebi'im until the anger of YHWH built up and there was no remedy.

There is no reason to regard the three avenues in v. 16 — 'the messengers of God', 'his words' and 'his nebi'ini> — as synonymous

82


phrases.3 Israel rejected every avenue through which God's word came. This included the priests, the Levites, an Egyptian pharaoh and the prophets. 'His prophets' would have included all the prophets (hozeh, nabi', man of God, and ro'eh). 'His words' probably refers to both 'the word of Moses' and 'the word of YHWH'.4 The 'messengers of God' is an all-inclusive term. It could have referred to any inspired messengers, both those with prophetic titles and those without. As I shall demonstrate in this chapter, the distinctions between characters with prophetic titles and those without prophetic titles indicates otherwise. Messenger (l^n) refers either to a divine or a human envoy in the Hebrew Bible and comes to be a secondary role label for a 'prophet' in exilic and post-exilic literature. Naomi Cohen claims that 'in exilic and post-exilic prophetic works the term mal'ak comes to be used as a synonym for the word nabi', eventually virtually replacing it completely'.5 Cohen overstates the rather meager evidence, but her analysis highlights the introduction of a significant new prophetic term in exilic and postexilic literature: 'messenger'. For instance, Second Isaiah apparently uses 'messenger' as a prophetic role label. In Isa. 44.26 we find the terms 'servant' and 'messenger' in parallelism, and the context suggests that the servant messenger is a prophet: 24... I am YHWH... 25 who annuls the signs of diviners (nnn6) and makes fools of the augurs; who turns back the sages and makes foolish 3. Williamson writes that 'his words and his prophets are again presented as virtually parallel' (Chronicles, p. 417). However, most commentators simply ignore this curious trio; cf. for example Curtis, Rudolph, Coggins. 4. A reference to the 'word of Moses', that is, the Mosaic legislation known from the Pentateuch, probably lies behind the reference to 'his words' (vm). Although mrr ~m is a technical term for prophetic oracles in pre-exilic and exilic literature, in Chronicles mrr ~m becomes associated with the written word, namely the Mosaic legislation (see discussion in Chapter 3). For instance, in 2 Chron. 35.6 Hezekiah commands the priests to prepare themselves and slaughter the Passover lamb 'according to the word of Yahweh by Moses' (T3 mrr i3"O neta). Thus, the 'word of Yahweh' becomes the written Mosaic law in Chronicles. It seems unlikely that the disobedience to the Mosaic law was omitted from the list of sins in 2 Chron. 36.16. There, vm is probably a reference to the Mosaic law. 5. N. Cohen, 'From Nabi to Mal'ak to "Ancient Figure'", JJS 36 (1985), p. 16. 6. MT C'13, 'liars'; however, most likely we have a 1 and ~i interchange and should emend to «CTH3», 'diviners' (cf. Akkadian, baru). The parallelism with D'QOp, 'augurs', invites this easy emendation as does the antithetical parallelism to v. 26,


83

their knowledge, 26 but who establishes the word of his servant and who performs the counsel of his messengers.

The servant's word is fulfilled; the messenger's counsel is borne out, as opposed to the diviners and augurs whose signs and words are frustrated. In this passage, the messenger is an extension of YHWH's servant, presumably a nabi' as in the frequent deuteronomic phrase 'his servants the prophets'.7 The role of the 'messenger' is contrasted with the roles of diviners and augurs. The messenger is not equated to the prophet, but the messenger's role belongs with the broad category of prophets which would include 'true' prophets as well as 'false' prophets. The latter prophets manifest a strong notion of the messenger. For instance, the late prophet Malachi's name means simply 'my messenger' (cf. Mai. 3.1).8 The latter prophet Haggai is 'the messenger of YHWH with the message of YHWH' (Hag. 1.13). This passage explains how a prophet might become identified with a messenger who carries the 'message of God'. The terms 'messenger' and nabi' should not be simply equated. The differences between the two terms are illustrated by the following diagram of their semantic fields: •human being

•human being •transient role •either human or divine being •sent by either human or God •carries message

•human being •sent by God •carries message

•permanent role •human being •sent by God •carries message

Not every divine messenger was a nabi', or vice versa. But they share the characteristics of being envoys sent with a message. However, the term 'messenger' is not nearly as restricted as nabi', since a messenger may be either human or otherworldly and may be sent either by a human person or a god.

7. See J.L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968), p. 73. Cf. also Isa. 42.19. 8. "DRô may not even be a personal name; see the discussion by Cohen, 'From Nabi to Mal'ak to "Ancient Figure'", pp. 19-21, and the literature cited there.

84


The term 'messenger' aptly describes the Chronicler's use of nonprophetic 'messengers'. The role of the messenger is transitory. The inspiration of the messenger is ad hoc. The messenger always has a specific message/mission and the status as a messenger does not exist without the message. The transitory aspect of the messenger's role is indicated by the inspiration formulas used, for example 'the spirit enveloped' (see below, 'Inspired Messengers'). The messenger's speech depends on the spirit. On the other hand, a prophet is called and commissioned. The call of Jeremiah implies the special nature of the prophetic office: 'before you were born, I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations' (Jer. 1.5). The difference between permanent and transitory aptly describes the use of inspiration formulas in Chronicles. The messenger of YHWH requires an inspiration formula, whereas the prophet may speak in YHWH's behalf without a inspiration formula. The different audiences of the Chronicler's inspired speakers will also bear out this distinction between 'prophets' and 'messengers'. The prophets always address the king in their speeches, but inspired speakers without prophetic labels, that is, 'messengers', address the people as a whole. Thus, although in theory there is an overlap between the terms nabi' and 'messenger', formal characteristics of the speeches demonstrate a distinction between the 'messengers' and the 'prophets'. It is not surprising then that we have in the conclusion of Chronicles a delineation of three 'messengers' of God which Israel had rejected: messengers, Torah and prophets. Messengers (his priests, Levites, soldiers and so on) are inspired to prophesy, but they are not necessarily prophets in the sense of the 'former prophets'. Yet it is also clear in 2 Chron. 36.15, 'YHWH sent his messengers to them continually', that these messengers are part of a larger category and not restricted to inspired speakers without prophetic labels. The 'messengers' could have included priests and Levites bringing the Torah, the priests and Levites inspired with a prophetic word (mrr -m), and those formally called 'prophets' (hozeh, nabi', ro'eh, man of God). Nevertheless, 'messengers' is a particularly appropriate term for inspired speakers without prophetic labels. Speakers with Prophetic Titles There are thirteen speech scenes by figures with prophetic titles (hozeh, nabi', ro'eh, man of God) in the book of Chronicles. Five speech scenes


85

are taken whole cloth from the Deuteronomic History.9 The speakers include Nathan (nabi'}, Gad (the royal hozeh), Shemaiah (nabi'), Hanani (ro'eh), Jehu (hozeh), Eliezer (nabi'), Elijah (nabi'), an anonymous man of God, an anonymous nabi', and Oded, a nabi' from the northern kingdom. The Chronicler's view of prophecy can best be ascertained from the non-synoptic compositions. Only with careful attention to the narrative framework can passages synoptic with Samuel-Kings be used to describe the Chronicler's view of prophecy. De Vries inadvertently proves the necessity of separating the synoptic (that is, parallel with Samuel-Kings) and non-synoptic (without parallel in Samuel-Kings) passages in Chronicles. In his form-critical essay on prophetic addresses in Chronicles, de Vries develops his first three forms, 'prophetic commission report', 'report of an oracular inquiry' and 'prophetic battle story', entirely from passages borrowed from Samuel-Kings.10 Therefore, they are not as helpful for understanding the Chronicler's own notions of prophecy. It is the Chronicler's non-synoptic compositions which illustrate most clearly his own views of prophecy. I shall therefore discuss below passages which are independent of SamuelKings. The Chronicler's synoptic compositions must be treated separately, and consequently the revision of prophetic speeches in 9. Synoptic speeches include 1 Chron. 17.3-15 (112 Sam. 7.3-14); 21.9-12 (112 Sam 24.11-13); 2 Chron. 11.2-4 (III Kgs 12.22-24); 18.10-22 (III Kgs 22.1123); 34.23-28 (112 Kgs 22.15-20). Non-synoptic speeches include 2 Chron. 12.5-8; 16.7-10; 19.1-3; 20.35-37; 21.12-15; 25.7-19, 15-16; 28.9-11. 10. See de Vries, 'The Forms of Prophetic Address in Chronicles', pp. 18-24.1 would further question the significance of classifying narratives according to 'forms' when only one or two examples of the so-called form exist. Moreover, the discussion of the forms in Chronicles implies a social reality or Sitz im Leben for each individual form. While it is profitable to discuss the Sitz im Leben of the book of Chronicles and perhaps the speeches in Chronicles, de Vries' work atomizes the speeches and formulas. It is inconceivable that the Chronicler consciously employed the forms which de Vries attributes to him. Samuel-Kings is the Chronicler's most obvious source. Yet the nature of this source is still not entirely clear. For instance, S. McKenzie argues that the Chronicler relied on an earlier version of the Deuteronomic History as a source; see The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, pp. 198-206. McKenzie's work highlights the problem of the Chronicler's sources. Even where the Chronicler is not relying on a Vorlage similar to the MT of Samuel-Kings, we cannot be sure the Chronicler did not have either a different or earlier version of Samuel-Kings, or another source entirely. See also the discussion of this problem in my Introduction.

86


Samuel-Kings will be addressed in Chapter 3. We shall examine five features of each prophetic speech: narrative context, use of inspiration formulas, audience of speech, purpose of speech, and use of prophetic motifs, language and texts. The narrative audience and purpose of the speeches directly reflect aspects of the speaker's role in the narrative. Speeches have purposes ranging from exhortation to warning to interpretation. Some speeches have more than one purpose. Finally, we must also examine the degree to which the prophetic and inspired speeches draw on prophetic motifs, language and texts.11 The purpose of this examination is to determine the prophetic speaker's purpose in the narrative and to understand how this purpose is accomplished. It will become clear in the course of this chapter that the prophets (nabi', man of God, hozeh, ro'eh) have different roles than other inspired messengers (for example, the priest) in the Chronicler's narrative. Shemaiah the nabi' to the King and the Officers (2 Chronicles 12.5-8; cf. in 1 Kings 14.25) 5 The nabi' Shemaiah came to Rehoboam and the officers of Judah, who had assembled in Jerusalem because of Shishak, and he said to them, 11. G. von Rad's study of the 'Levitical Sermon' pioneered the study of citation of Scripture in the speeches of Chronicles. However, there is need for refinement in von Rad's approach. For instance, von Rad asserts that 2 Chron. 32.7 is 'quoted from Joshua X.25' and that v. 8a 'depends unmistakably on Jer. XVII.5' (The Levitical Sermon', 274). Although the sequence in v. 7 does match exactly Josh. 10.25, the general expression 'Be strong and do not fear' is so common that it is impossible to claim a direct quote. Similarly, icn ant does not match Jer. 17.5 exactly. It is such a brief reference that is impossible to be certain that the Chronicler was aware of the Jeremian text in using this reference. Rather, the Chronicler makes use of biblical language and motifs. Studies on the use of Scripture in the Qumranic psalm composition refine the simplistic approach to quotation of Scripture. Bonnie Kittel in her study of the Hodayot suggests four categories for the use of biblical language. These include (1) quotation recalling a specific biblical passage, (2) use of biblical literary forms, (3) use of biblical imagery or metaphor, and (4) expression of thoughts 'in a manner consistent with biblical language and terminology' (The Hymns of Qumran [SBLDS, 50; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981], pp. 49-55; see also E. Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms From Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986], pp. 10-12). While admittedly these categories must be rather elastic, it is a helpful corrective to the simplistic division between 'quotation' and 'original material'. These divisions will also be helpful for discussing the Chronicler's use of prophetic texts, language and motifs.


87

'Thus said YHWH, "You have forsaken me, so I have forsaken you to Shishak".' 6 Then the officers of Israel and the king humbled themselves and declared, 'YHWH is righteous'. 7 When YHWH saw that they had humbled themselves, the word of YHWH came to Shemaiah, saying, 'they have humbled themselves, I shall not destroy them, but I shall give to them as a little remnant12 and my wrath shall not be poured out on Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak. 8 They will become servants to him so that they know [the difference between] my service and the service of the kingdoms of the earth.'

The prophetic speech scene begins in v. 5, but the narrative scene encompasses vv. 2-9. The Chronicler uses the literary technique of Wiederaufnahme ('repetitive resumption') to frame the narrative scene (vv. 2a, 9a).13 The framing repetition, 'And Shishak, the king of Egypt, marched against Jerusalem', is borrowed verbatim from 1 Kgs 14.25 and marks the Chronicler's insertion of the narrative scene. The narrative scene has two parts, vv. 2-4 and vv. 5-8. Verses 2b-4 elaborate on the invasion of Shishak, describing his troops and the damage which they did. The narrative scene relies heavily on material borrowed from synoptic passages but uses the Chronicler's stereotypical language. In the first part, the Chronicler appends an explanation in the narrator's voice when the text states, 'Shishak marched against Jerusalem because they rebelled against YHWH'. The grounds for the narrator's interpretation are placed in the narrative voice: Rehoboam forsook the Torah of YHWH (cf. v. Ib). This will become the substance 12. The phrase rrn^sb B^QD is difficult. Curtis understands this as 'a little deliverance' (Chronicles, p. 371; also see Williamson, Chronicles, p. 248). Mason suggests that 'some respite' would fit the context of imminent judgment (Preaching the Tradition, p. 35). Yet the term nerâ elsewhere refers to a remnant which has escaped destruction. This is most dramatic in Ezra's sermon before the returning exiles, 'but now, for a short while (CB^DD an), there has been a reprieve from YHWH our God, who has saved for us a remnant (nerba) and given us a stake in this holy place' (Ezra 9.8). The use of the term no'â invariably refers to a physical remnant, often left from war or judgment. Cf. Judg. 21.17; 2 Sam. 15.14; 2 Kgs 19.31; Isa. 37.32; Jer. 25.35; Ezra 9.13, 14, 15; Neh. 1.2; 2 Chron. 20.24; 30.6. See further my discussion in The Source Citations of Manasseh: King Manasseh in History and Homily', VT41 (1991), pp. 453-55. 13. On this technique, see C. Kuhl, 'Die "Wiederaufnahme"—ein literarkritisches Prinzip?', ZAW64 (1952), pp. 1-11. Burke Long emphasizes the authorial nature of repetition in historical works: 'Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography', JBL 106 (1987), pp. 385-99. Also see I.L. Seeligmann, 'Hebraische Erzahlung und biblische Geschichtsschreibung', 7Z 18 (1962), pp. 314-24.

88


of the nabi"s explanation of Shishak's invasion. A similar explanation is given for the fall of Saul's dynasty, where the Chronicler also appends a comment to his deuteronomic source (cf. 1 Chron. 10.12-13 with 1 Sam. 21.13). R. Braun points out that the verb 'to rebel' C»a) is part of the Chronicler's characteristic vocabulary.14 The Chronicler's reference to the fortified cities which Shishak had captured is a reflex of his list of Rehoboam's fortifications.15 The second part of the narrative scene is the prophetic speech in vv. 5-8. The Chronicler patterns the prophetic speech after 1 Kgs 12.2224 (112 Chron. 11.2-4). In both scenes we find the same nabi', Shemaiah, and the same two inspiration formulas. The Chronicler's compositional techniques must be viewed with an eye toward his source, 2 Chron. 11.2-4 (III Kgs 12.22-24): 2 And the word of YHWH came to Shemaiah, man of God, saying, 3 'Speak to Rehoboam, son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all Israel16 which are in Judah and Benjamin, saying, 4 Thus said YHWH: "You shall not go up and you shall not wage war with your kinsmen! Return, each man to his own house because this thing is from me"'. And they obeyed the words of YHWH and they refrained from going against Jeroboam.

2 Chron. 11.2-4 and 12.5-8 employ both an intermediary formula and the messenger formula. The use of these two formulas together is characteristic of deuteronomic literature, but atypical for Chronicles (cf. 14. 'Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah: Theology and Literary History', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (VTSup, 30; Leiden: Brill, 1979), pp. 53-56. See further discussion of â in J. Milgrom's Cult and Conscience (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 16-35, and R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (Freiburg: Herder, 1973), pp. 29-33. Also see 2 Chron. 26.18; 29.6; 30.7; 33.19; 36.14. 15. The term rrnxon "~\s, 'fortified cities', occurs only here in 12.4 and in Rehoboam's list in 11.23. 16. Commentators are quick to point out that the Chronicler has apparently replaced the phrase ]'n'J3i rrnrr rra in his Vorlage (1 Kgs 12.23) with ]!T33T mirm *?tnfir. This change would support the Chronicler's 'pan-Israel' theology (see Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, pp. 87-140). However, it should be pointed out that the Old Greek version of 2 Paraleipomena omits '3 *7tOBT. McKenzie has pointed out the difficulty of appealing to these minor variations as signs of the Chronicler's Tendenz since they often reflect differences in the textual traditions (The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, pp. 11954). See also Lemke, 'The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler's History', pp. 349-63.


89

Chapter 1, 'intermediary formulas'). In Chronicles, the use of these two formulas in proximity occurs only in these two passages. We may surmise that the Chronicler used 1 Kgs 12.22-24 (111 Chron. 11.2-4) as a formal pattern for creating the prophetic speech scene in 2 Chron. 12.5-8. The audience of 2 Chron. 12.5-8 is narrowed from 1 Kgs 12.23 (112 Chron. 11.3). The audience in 1 Kgs 12.23 (112 Chron. 11.3) is 'the king and all Israel'. In 2 Chron. 12.5-8, the audience of prophetic judgement is Rehoboam and his officers and it is the king and his officers who repent. This is rather curious since the language of vv. 7-8 would suggest that all Israel was subject to judgment. This tension between the audience in vv. 5 and 7-8 addresses the two audiences of the Chronicler's narrative. In v. 5 the nabi' speaks to the king who is the proper audience of the prophet's address. However, the words of vv. 78 imply a wider audience than King Rehoboam in the tenth century BCE: they are aimed at the Chronicler's own post-exilic community. Shemaiah's speech explains the consequences of Rehoboam's past actions to the king according to his theology of retribution.17 Curtis mistakenly calls the verb ran? in 12.5 a 'prophetic perfect', that is, 'I shall forsake'.18 However, the context indicates that it refers to a past event, since Shishak has already taken the fortified towns of Judah (v. 4) and thus Rehoboam has already been forsaken. This is substantiated by the parallel verb in the verse Draw, 'you have forsaken', which also refers to a past event. Rehoboam had already forsaken God (cf. vv. 1-2) and so also God had already forsaken Rehoboam. The nabi' is not predicting the future, but rather explaining the past. Sara Japhet has argued that the prophet's 'explanation is, in reality, an implicit call to repentance' since it results in the people's repentance.19 But warning is not its explicit function in the narrative. In fact, Shemaiah's second prophetic message in vv. 7b-8 is also an explanation of the purposes of YHWH's action and certainly cannot be any kind of call to repentance. The nabi' tells Rehoboam that God has given Jerusalem a remnant (nerâ) from 17. This has been extensively discussed; see for example Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, pp. 203-10. Also see Williamson, Chronicles, pp. 31-33; Japhet, The Ideology of the Chronicler and its Place in Biblical Thought, pp. 165-76. 18. Chronicles, p. 372. 19. The Ideology of Chronicles, p. 178. See however Dan. 9.14, where the response 'YHWH our God is righteous' (irrfw mrr p"fif) is also employed in historical retrospect.

90


Shishak because they humbled themselves and that through this God taught Israel 'the difference between my service (Tmau) and the service of the kingdoms of the earth (rren»n rro'paa may)' (vv. 7b-8). The nabi' then serves primarily as an interpreter of past events in the narrative. The prophet's words function secondarily as a warning to Rehoboam and, more importantly, to the Chronicler's post-exilic community. The nabt"s message uses the principle of correspondence between sin and punishment, commonly called 'measure for measure'. The principle is clear in v. 5b, 'you have forsaken me (-n« Draw), so I have forsaken you (DDHK -raw)'. Patrick Miller points out that correspondence between sin and judgment is typical of the classical prophets.20 Often, the classical prophets even employ the same kind of wordplay seen in 2 Chron. 12.5. The book of Obadiah spells out the principle: 'just as you have done, it shall be done to you; your deeds shall return on your own head' (Obad. 15). The Chronicler's formulation of measure for measure punishment may be influenced by this principle in classical prophecy. The nabf's message must have sounded a chord in heart of the postexilic community. In fact, the message echoes a sermon in Ezra 9.7-8: 7 From the days of our fathers until this very day we have had great guilt. Because of our iniquities, we, our kings, and our priests were given into the hand of the kings of the earth, to the sword, to captivity, to plunder, and to open shame, as it is this day. 8 Now for a brief moment there is relief from YHWH our God to leave us a remnant (ntD'â) and to give to us a peg in this holy place so that our God may brighten our eyes and give us a little relief in our service (UTOJO).

Ezra's sermon develops the themes of foreign service and relief found in Shemaiah's speech to Rehoboam. According to Ezra, God had given the Israelites 'into the hands of the kings of the land' (mm^n -D^Q T3; cf. 2 Chron. 12.8, rmn»n m^na rrnar), but God spared a remnant (rrcrte; cf. 2 Chron. 12.7). Ezra's address to a contemporary post-exilic audience picks up some of the same themes, even some of the same language, as the Chronicler's early 'pre-exilic' nabi'. In the Rehoboam 20. Sin and Judgement in the Prophets (SBLMS, 27; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982). Miller's analysis focuses on the prophetic corpus; however, his analysis should certainly be extended to the historical books. The principle of 'measure for measure' develops further in rabbinic literature; see E. Urbach, The Sages (ET; Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1987), pp. 436-44. For instance, the Mishnah teaches that 'with what measure a man metes, it shall be meted out to him' (m. Sot. 1.7; cf. Mt. 7.1-2).


91

narrative then, the nabi' Shemaiah apparently becomes the mouthpiece for a message to the Chronicler's contemporary community. Hanani the ro'eh to the king (2 Chronicles 16.7-10) 1 At that time Hanani, the ro 'eh, came to Asa, king of Judah, and he said to him, 'because you have depended upon the king of Aram and you did not depend upon YHWH your God, therefore the army of the king of Aram has eluded your grasp. 8 Were not the Cushites and the Libyans a vast army with many chariots and horsemen? And yet, when you depended upon YHWH, he gave them into your grasp 9 because YHWH's eyes rove about all the earth to strengthen those with an undivided heart. In this thing then, you have acted foolishly and from now on you will have wars.' 10 And Asa was angry at the seer and he put him into prison because he was upset over this and Asa also oppressed some of the people at that time.

The ro'eh's speech is framed by the inclusio 'at that time' («-nn nm) which opens and closes the scene (vv. 7a and lOb). The repeated element 'at that time' is not borrowed from the Chronicler's source, as in the Wiederaufnahme in 2 Chron. 12.2 and 9, but originates with the Chronicler and is used to indicate the edges of the insertion (cf. 1 Kgs 15.22-23).21 The ro'eh's speech is addressed to the king alone. Speaking to the king alone, as we shall see, is typical of the prophets' speeches. Although the speech lacks any inspiration formulas, we may infer that the ro'eh's message makes a claim to divine authority. The explanation 'you have depended upon the king of Aram and did not depend upon YHWH your God, therefore the army of the king of Aram has eluded your grasp' suggests that the ro'eh understands YHWH's will and this implies a claim to divine authority. The ro'eh Hanani's message echoes traditional prophetic material. First of all, the phrase 'his eyes rove about in all the earth' (mrr -D pKrrbDn mooBQ rra , v. 9) is very similar to the phrase in Zech. 4.10b (f-iNrr'wa TOQTO rran mrr -ra). The slight variation in formulation might suggest that this was a stock phrase and it would then not be a matter of direct literary borrowing from one source to another.22 The prophetic 21. The Chronicler probably picked up the technical term STtn run, 'at that time', from the book of Kings; see Tadmor and Cogan, 'Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser in the Book of Kings: Historiographic Considerations', Bib 60 (1979), pp. 493-99. 22. Contra von Rad, 'The Levitical Sermon', pp. 269-270.

92


speech also plays on the verb 'to depend on' (pew) to communicate a poetic retribution.23 This literary motif of trust in foreign rulers may allude to Isaiah's prophecies. Although there is no direct literary borrowing from Isaiah on this point, there are a number of points of comparison: (1) a similar motif, dependence on foreign rulers, (2) the figurative use of dependence, and (3) the notion of trusting in horsemen and chariots which occurs in both 2 Chron. 16.8 and Isa. 31.1 (also cf. Isa. 10.20; 30.18). There is a close relationship between the ro'eh's speech and the Chronicler's revision of his Vorlage. The ro'eh explains the relationship between Asa's foolish actions and the coming judgment: 'In this thing then (nttf"1?:?), you have acted foolishly and from now on you will have wars'. The reference to 'wars' (mnn^n) consciously picks up the Chronicler's earlier revision of his source. In 1 Kgs 15.16, the Deuteronomist reports that there was continual war between Asa and Baasha: 'Now there was war between Asa and Baasha the king of Israel all their days'. However, the Chronicler revises this report, indicating that there was no war during the first part of Asa's reign (2 Chron. 15.19): 'Now there was no war until the thirty-fifth year of the reign of Asa'. We surmise from the nabi' Hanani's speech that the war began because (nnt'^p) Asa relied upon the Arameans. The inclusio which frames the scene, 'at that time' (KTJTI run), presumably refers to the thirtyfifth year of Asa from the Chronicler's revision of the initial war report. The nexus between the Chronicler's narrative revision of the war report in 2 Chron. 15.19 (II 1 Kgs 15.16) and the addition of the prophetic scene in 2 Chron. 16.7-10 illustrates the close relationship between the Chronicler's narrative composition and the prophetic speeches. The Chronicler constructs the ro'eh's speech around a historical retrospect. The ro'eh's historical illustration recalls the attack of the Cushites in 2 Chron. 14.7-15. There, Asa defeats a much larger Cushite and Lybian army at Mareshah with the help of YHWH. 2 Chron. 14.1012 records Asa's prayer and YHWH's response: 10 Asa called upon YHWH his God and he said, 'O YHWH, there is none like you to help [in battle] between the mighty and the powerless. Help us, O YHWH our God, because we rely on you and in your name we come against this multitude. O YHWH, you are our God. May no man stop you. 11 And YHWH smote the Cushite before Asa and before Judah and the Cushites fled. 12 And Asa and the people with him pursued them as far 23. Cf. Miller, Sin and Judgement in the Prophets.


93

as Gerar and the Cushites fell until none were left alive because they were broken before YHWH and before his camp. And they took a very large amount of booty.

The verbal root 'to depend' (paft) in v. 10 becomes the key term in Hanani's speech (2 Chron. 16.7-8). The ro'eh's speech uses this term to confirm a narrative analysis of the event in 14.11, 'YHWH smote them before Asa', namely that YHWH had given victory before when Asa trusted him. The speech then uses this past event to condemn Asa's reliance upon the king of Aram instead of YHWH. History becomes a didactic lesson in the mouth of the nabi' directed on the narrative level toward King Asa. Thus Claus Westermann writes, 'in II Chron. 16.7-10 the prophetic speech is no longer an announcement but a later interpretation of two completed incidents—a victory and a defeat'.24 We may assume that the Chronicler also intended the lesson to be applied to his own contemporary audience. Thus, the depiction of the Cushite invasion serves the Chronicler on three levels: first, as an event in the historical narrative in 2 Chronicles 14; secondly, as a didactic example in the prophetic speech in 2 Chronicles 16; and thirdly, as a 'sermon' for the Chronicler's contemporary post-exilic audience. Although historical recollections are employed in other non-prophetic speeches,25 the use of a specific historical event as a didactic tool is unparalleled in other speeches. The ro 'eh in this case tries to apply the 'lesson of history' to a contemporary situation, condemning the king for not learning the lesson and, implicitly, chiding a post-exilic audience to learn the lesson of history. In this case, the prophetic speech not only confirms the narrator's interpretation of history, but it uses this interpretation to teach and chide the king. Jehu the hozeh to the King (2 Chronicles 19.1-3) 1 And Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, returned home to Jerusalem in safety. 2 And Jehu, son of Hanani, the hozeh went out to meet him and he said to the king, 'Jehoshaphat, do you delight in helping the wicked and those who hate YHWH? Because of this, wrath from YHWH came upon you. 3 However, good things are found in you because you purged the Asheroth from the land and set your heart to seek God.'

This unit depicts an encounter between a hozeh and King Jehoshaphat after Jehoshaphat has returned from an unsuccessful alliance with Ahab, 24. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, p. 164. 25. See Mason, Preaching the Tradition, p. 141. See 2 Chron. 13.4-12; 15.3-6.

94


king of Israel. This short prophetic speech scene has no synoptic parallel but follows on the heels of the synoptic account of Jehoshaphat and Ahab's alliance (cf. 2 Chron. 18 // 1 Kgs 22). The audience of the speech is restricted to the king, Jehoshaphat. The narrative employs no inspiration formula to introduce the hozeh's speech. Again, there are no explicit sign of the hozeh's authority save the prophetic role label. We may infer that the hozeh's message is inspired since he claims knowledge of the way God shall deal with Jehoshaphat (vv. 2b-3). However, this is merely the inference that we draw from the hozeh's speech. The narrative framework does not even suggest that YHWH sent the hozeh to confront Jehoshaphat (cf. 2 Chron. 24.19; 25.15). In his short speech, the hozeh explains that Jehoshaphat has received 'wrath from YHWH' because of his alliance with Ahab. The punishment is based upon past actions, 'and because of this' (ntftn). The hozeh's message does not serve as a warning per se to Jehoshaphat since it does not ask him to do anything or stop doing anything. The hozeh informs Jehoshaphat that the consequence of his alliance with Ahab is 'wrath (fpip) from YHWH'. But where is this wrath played out in the Chronicler's narrative? Williamson points out that the statement 'there was wrath from before YHWH' is a thematic link to the following narrative. In Jehoshaphat's commissioning of the Levites as judges he enjoins them to judge fairly lest 'wrath (^xp) be upon you' (v. 10).26 This associative link ties the narrative in ch. 18 with the following narrative by the repetition of the term 'wrath'. The associative link may illustrate a compositional technique, but it does not answer the question: what 'wrath' did Jehoshaphat receive from YHWH for his alliance with Ahab? Rudolph argues that the 'wrath' in 19.2 must refer to the war in ch. 20.27 This is untenable because ch. 20 describes a great victory over a Moabite coalition. It is difficult to see how this might fulfill the hozeh's reference to 'wrath from YHWH'. Thus, the question remains: what sort of 'wrath' is the prophet referring to? The prophet's reference to 'wrath from YHWH' and the good things found in Jehoshaphat must refer to the past.28 The answer must, in fact, be sought in the preceding chapter. 2 Chronicles 18 is one of the largest blocks of material which the 26. Williamson, Chronicles, p. 279. 27. Rudolph, Chronikbucher, p. 255. 28. The verbless construction mrr 'EJ^D ^p ~\^s n«n, 'because of this there was wrath from before Yahweh', certainly allows a past rather than future event.


95

Chronicler has copied from his Vorlage (cf. 1 Kgs 22). Steven McKenzie points out that the accounts of 1 Chronicles 18 and 1 Kings 22 are 'extremely close'.29 The only significant changes which the Chronicler made to his Vorlage are in the introduction (v. 2) and in v. 31. The introduction to 1 Kings 22 is as follows: And there was a lull three years without war between Aram and Israel. 2 Then in the third year, Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, went down to the king of Israel.

The Chronicler rewrites the introduction to this episode in 2 Chron. 18.2 to read as follows: At the end of some years, [Jehoshaphat] went down to Ahab at Samaria. Ahab sacrificed many sheep and cattle for him and for the people who were with him. Then, Ahab enticed him to go up to Ramoth Gilead.

The key word in the Chronicler's rewritten introduction is the verb 'to entice' (iron). The Chronicler employs this term again in a comment he inserts within the battle narrative. The may be seen by comparing 1 Kgs 22.32-33 with 2 Chron. 18.31-32, And when the chariot officers saw Jehoshaphat, they said, 'it is the king of Israel!' And they turned against him to attack him. Then Jehoshaphat cried out and when the chariot officers saw that it was not the king of Israel, they stopped the pursuit (1 Kgs 22.32-33). And when the chariot officers saw Jehoshaphat, they said, 'it is the king of Israel!' And they wheeled around to attack him. Then Jehoshaphat cried out and YHWH helped him30 and God diverted them from him. And when the chariot officers saw that it was not the king of Israel, they stopped the pursuit (2 Chron. 18.31-32).

The Chronicler's critical addition is the phrase 'and God diverted them from him' (i3nn n^nbtf nrrcn). The use of the Hebrew verb Vmo with the preposition 'from' (p) is unique in the Hebrew Bible. This verb is usually translated 'to incite, entice'.31 How are we to understand this 29. McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, p. 101. 30. McKenzie suggests that the phrase TITJJ mm may have dropped out of the Kings version through haplography Cm...lira mrr) since the LXXL has eacooev oruTov (The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, p. 101). The use of the name DTI^K rather than mrr convinces me that 13QD DTI^N nrrcn is the Chronicler's own addition and was not in his Vorlage since 1 Kgs 22 elsewhere uses the tetragram. 31. See BDB, p. 694.

96


comment which the Chronicler adds to his Vorlage! Examples of the use of the Hebrew verb Vmo from elsewhere in the Old Testament may be instructive for its use in 1 Chronicles 18. In 1 Chron. 21.1, Satan entices David into taking a census of Israel: 'And Satan stood against Israel and enticed David to number Israel'. David's numbering results in 'guilt for Israel' (v. 11) which must be expiated by one of three punishments. In another case, God says that Satan 'enticed' him against Job, harming Job without cause (Job 2.3). Elsewhere, the Israelites are commanded not to listen to deceivers who 'entice' them to serve other gods, resulting in their destruction (Deut. 13.7). In each of these cases, the act of enticing or inciting (rrorr) results in some kind of wrath, punishment or evil. We may surmise then that the Hebrew verb Vmo usually refers to enticing toward evil with the concomitant disastrous results. In the narrative introduction to Jehoshaphat's alliance with Ahab, the Hebrew verb Vmo was apparently used to imply a negative moral judgment on the alliance and to portend the disastrous results. The phrase in 2 Chron. 18.31, imn DTI^N an'O'i, is linked to the Chronicler's narrative introduction by the verbal root Vmo. Ahab enticed Jehoshaphat into a fateful alliance that almost cost him his life at the hand of the chariot officers of Aram; this is the implication of the Chronicler's addition in v. 31, namely that God 'enticed them away from Jehoshaphat'. By God's diverting the chariot officers, a disastrous result was avoided. We may suggest then that this incident when the charioteers pursued Jehoshaphat lies behind the 'wrath from before YHWH' which the hozeh refers to (19.2). Furthermore, God then may be seen as 'enticing them away' or diverting the chase because, as the hozeh Jehu points out, 'there were some good things found in Jehoshaphat'. Most notably, Jehoshaphat calls upon YHWH when he is in trouble, as in 18.31-32. Thus, the prophetic speech further develops the Chronicler's interpretation of the alliance with Ahab. The Chronicler interprets the narrative of ch. 18 in the short prophetic speech in 19.2-3. Even in a case where the Chronicler borrows a story almost verbatim from his Vorlage, he still subtly alters the story to convey his own interpretation and reinforces his interpretation with a prophetic speech. In the Chronicler's hands, then, the story of the alliance between Ahab and Jehoshaphat serves primarily to repeat his sermon against foreign alliances. With only a slight changes in his Vorlage, the Chronicler radically changes the meaning of the story which in 1 Kings 22 deals with the issue of who is


97

a true prophet. The story no longer explores the problem of true and false prophecy. In Chronicles it is now a story of the futility of foreign alliances. The Chronicler also showed a similar insensitivity to the issue of false prophecy in his use of certain inspiration formulas. For example, 'and PN spoke in the name of YHWH' (mrr otfa PN -QTI) and 'to act as a prophet' (toann) ordinarily are employed in contexts which raise the issue of false prophecy (see Chapter 1). However, the Chronicler uses these formulas and is apparently unaware of this aspect. This is illustrated with the verb 'to act as a prophet' in the next example of Eliezer. Eliezer the nabi'*2 to the King (2 Chronicles 20.35-37; cf. 1 Kings 22.49-50) And after this, Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, made an alliance33 with Ahaziah, king of Israel, thereby he acted wickedly. 36 He joined with him to construct ships to go to Tarshish and they made the ships in Eziongeber. 37 Then Eliezer, son of Dodavahu from Mareshah, prophesied against Jehoshaphat saying, 'Because you have allied yourself with Ahaziah, YHWH will break up your works'. And the ships were wrecked and were not able to go to Tarshish.

Even though Eliezer is not given a prophetic role label, the expression 'to act as a prophet' (K33nn; see Chapter 1, 'enactment formulas') suggests that he was acting in the role of a nabi '. There may be some significance in the fact that the prophet's town, Mareshah, was the site of Asa's victory against the Ethiopians (cf. 2 Chron. 14.8, 9). In 2 Chron. 16.7-10 another prophet came to Asa and used the battle at Mareshah against the Ethiopians as a historical example of God's salvation without reliance on other nations. This narrative concerning a failed shipping expedition is paralleled in 1 Kings, but the Chronicler has rewritten the incident in line with his principle of 'retribution theology'. The Chronicler provides a larger context to the incident when compared to the abbreviated report in 1 Kgs 22.49-50: 49 Jehoshaphat made Tarshish-ships to sail to Ophir for gold, but they were wrecked in Ezion-geber. 50 Then Ahaziah, son of Ahab, said to Jehoshaphat, 'Let my servants sail with your servants', but Jehoshaphat was not willing. 32. See discussion in Chapter 1 under 'enactment formulas', 33. Apparently, a hithpael perfect with an -litf prefix. If this is not a scribal error, then it reflects the influence of Aramaic (see Dan. 11.6, 23); see GKC §54a; BL §49u.

98


Either the Chronicler has rewritten the account or he was relying on a Vorlage which had substantial differences with the Masoretic tradition of 1 Kings.34 The Deuteronomistic History provides no explanation for the destruction of the ships, but the Chronicler's version remedies this 'omission'. The Chronicler's account begins with an initial context for the incident: Jehoshaphat made an alliance with Ahaziah. The figure of Eliezer immediately follows, providing the connection between the alliance and the destruction of the ships. The prophecy is directed specifically at Jehoshaphat, so the audience is the king alone. The narrative and the speech are so brief as to allow little doubt about the purpose of the prophetic speech: it confirms the narrator's interpretation of Jehoshaphat's maritime alliance. The narrator's voice is marked by the deictic element Kin,35 which introduces the comment in v. 35b, 'thereby he acted wickedly'. The narrator morally evaluates Jehoshaphat's alliance. This moral evaluation is implicit in the prophetic judgment: YHWH will break up the maritime works because Jehoshaphat 'acted wickedly' in making the alliance. Both the narrator's comment and the prophetic speech rely upon the root V-tou, 'to do, make'. This correspondence only enhances the close association between the narrative and the prophetic speech and further illustrates a two-part explanation of the historical events. The narrator introduces the explanation and the prophet confirms the narrator's explanation. Elijah the nabt' to the King (2 Chronicles 21.12-15) 12 And a letter came to [Jehoram] from Elijah the nabi' saying, Thus YHWH, the God of David your father, says, "Since you have not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat your father, nor in the ways of Asa, the king of Judah, 13 but you have walked in the way of the kings of Israel and you have led astray Judah and the Jerusalemites according to the apostasy of the house of Ahab and you also killed your brothers of your father's house who were better than you, 14 indeed YHWH shall inflict a great 34. The LXX tradition places this passage after 1 Kgs 16.28. The LXX's arrangement of the Ahab material differs substantially from the MT and suggests that a complex textual tradition underlies this material; see D. Gooding, 'Ahab according to the Septuagint', ZAW76 (1964), pp. 169-80. 35. Fishbane points out that Kin is used as a deictic element for scribal glosses and to introduce interpretations of dreams, visions and oracles (see Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 44-46, 447-505). See further Fishbane's treatment of the Chronicler's interpretation of 1 Kgs 22.49-50; Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 402-403.


99

blow on your kinsmen, your sons, your daughters, and all your possessions. 15 And, as for you, your bowels will be severely afflicted with a disease for many years until your bowels come out from the disease"'.

This passage, although not technically a 'speech', is nevertheless an important pericope for studying the Chronicler's prophetic speeches. As many commentators have noted, the delivery of a prophecy by letter is unusual.36 While this is unusual, the formal structure of the prophecy is typical of classical prophecy. Rex Mason writes, Elijah's 'letter' contains the purest form of classical prophetic threat of judgement with (1) messenger formula (v. 12); (2) ground of accusation (vv. 12f.); and (3) announcement of future, total judgement (vv. 14f.).37

The prophet Jeremiah also writes a prophetic threat of judgment on a scroll (Jer. 36). In the case of Jeremiah, the nabi' apparently dictated the prophecies to his scribe Baruch because Jeremiah could not to go into the temple and proclaim the prophecy himself (36.5-6).38 Perhaps the Chronicler uses the medium of a letter because it was implausible that Elijah should go into the royal palace in Jerusalem to proclaim the judgment in person.39 The use of a letter instead of a speech may also be indicative of the transition from oral prophecy to written prophecy in the post-exilic period.40 The Chronicler has skillfully woven this letter into his whole narrative

36. Curtis suggests that this letter is 'a pure product of the imagination, since Elijah had nothing to do with the southern kingdom, and clearly was not living at the time (2 K. 3.1 Iff.)...' (Chronicles, pp. 415-16). Coggins writes, 'The idea of a letter may suggest that by the Chronicler's day prophecy had come to be written down' (Chronicles, p. 229). See also discussions by Michaeli, Chroniques, p. 199; Williamson, Chronicles, pp. 306-307. 37. Preaching the Tradition, p. 140. 38. Similarly, Jeremiah sends a prophecy of hope by letter to the exiles in Babylon (Jer. 29). 39. Some scholars argue that in fact Elijah was already dead; cf. 2 Kgs 3.11. However, it might be inferred from 2 Kgs 1.17 that Elijah was still alive since Joram ascended the throne before the ascension of Elijah (2 Kgs 2). Moreover, the chronology of the Elijah-Elisha legenda is not reliable. B.J. Dieber points out that this problem results from reading Chronicles 'in the context of 2 Kings' ('Uberlegungen zum "Brief des Elia" [2 Chron. 21, 12-15]', Henoch 9 [1987], pp. 202-203). 40. See especially Blenkinsopp's discussion of 'scribal prophecy' and 'clerical prophecy' in Prophecy and Canon, pp. 124-38.

100


of Jehoram.41 The condemnation in the letter picks up from the explanation from the earlier narrative in v. 4 (non-synoptic): 'And when Jehoram had secured his father's kingdom, he killed all his brothers with the sword and also some of the officials of Israel'. The Chronicler expresses the judgment of this particular act by recalling it in Elijah's prophecy ('and you also killed your brothers', v. 13). The fulfillment of Elijah's prophecy directly follows the delivery of the letter to Jehoram in vv. 16-19. Elijah's letter is prefaced with a variation of the messenger formula, 'thus says YHWH the God of David'.42 The expression 'the God of David' emphasizes the contrast between Jehoram and his forefathers beginning with David (note v. 12b). The messenger formula is perhaps more appropriate for a letter since it was borrowed from the established protocol of official letters in the ancient Near East.43 The letter is written in the third person, 'YHWH shall afflict...', and not in the first person as we might expect. The breakdown in the messenger formula probably indicates that the letter is the Chronicler's own composition. Elijah's message is a condemnation of Jehoram for following in the ways of the northern kings and a prediction of the king's fate. The nabf's judgment speech is implicitly a condemnation of making alliances, much like the prophecies of Hanani, Jehu and Eliezer. The Chronicler's closely follows a source in v. 13a, namely, 2 Kings. In 2 Kgs 8.18a we read, 'And [Jehoram] walked in the ways of the kings of Israel just like the house of Ahab did because he had taken a daughter of Ahab as a wife'. The Deuteronomist makes it clear that Jehoram's wicked ways resulted from a royal alliance by marriage with the house of Ahab. We may assume that the Chronicler followed his source in this reasoning. The Chronicler's theology of retribution underlies Elijah's message.44 This is reflected in vv. 13b-14a, 'you also killed your brothers of your father's house..., so YHWH shall inflict a great blow on 41. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 416. 42. The same formula is used in 2 Kgs 20.5 (//Isa. 38.5). The expression X-T^N, 'the God of, is sometimes added to the messenger formula for emphasis or contrast, usually with the expression "ptofir TI^K, 'the God of Israel'; cf. Exod. 5.1; 9.1, 13; 10.3; Josh. 7.13; 24.2; Judg. 6.8; 1 Sam. 10.18; 2 Sam. 12.7; 1 Kgs 11.31; 14.7; 17.14; 2 Kgs 9.6; 19.20; 21.12; 22.15, 18; 37.21; Jer. 5.14; 11.3; 13.12; 21.4; 23.2; 24.5; 25.15; 30.2; 32.36; 33.4; 34.2; 34.13; 35.17; 37.7; 38.17; 42.9; 44.7; 45.2; Amos 5.16; Zech. 11.4. 43. See Chapter 1, 'messenger formulas'. 44. See examples discussed above including 2 Chron. 12.1-8; 16.7-12; 20.35-37.


101

your kinsmen, your sons, your daughters, and all your possessions'. Jehoram receives his punishment 'measure for measure'.45 The letter is addressed to a Judaean king. The royal audience is one of the characteristic elements of the prophetic speeches which have been discussed. Although Elijah is a northern nabi ', it is not surprising that he appears in Chronicles. The significance of the nabi' Elijah in post-exilic literature is attested in the book of Malachi where Elijah is placed alongside Moses, apparently as representatives of 'the law and the nebi'im' (cf. Mai. 3.22-24). Significantly, Elijah becomes a nabi' to the Judaean king rather than a northern king, who was illegitimate (cf. 2 Chron. 13.4-12; cf. Oded, 2 Chron. 28.9-11). An Anonymous 'Man of God' to the King (2 Chronicles 25.7-9) 1 Now a man of God came to Amaziah saying, 'O king, do not let the army of Israel come with you because YHWH is not with Israel—all of these sons of Ephraim. 8 Surely if you go into battle strong and resolute,46 God will cast you down before the enemy because God has the power to help or to cast down.' 9 And Amaziah said to the man of God, 'But what is to be done about the hundred talents of silver which I gave to the Israelite mercenaries?' The man of God said, 'YHWH is able to give you much more than this!'

The prophetic confrontation and speech are prefaced by Amaziah 's preparations for war, including his hiring of Israelite mercenaries. The Chronicler's account of the war in Edom (v. 11) draws on 2 Kgs 14.7. The preparations for war and the prophetic encounter reported in vv . 5- 1 0 45. Cf. Miller, Sin and Judgement in the Prophets. 46. The Hebrew phrase rran'ra'? pm rvos nn« ta CK 'D is difficult and has been understood in a number of ways. Curtis and Rudolph emend (without versional support), inserting *b, thus •j'reJD' vfr (Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 442-43; Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, p. 278). Yet even with this emendation the text is still difficult. The LXX probably reflects free translation of the MT, cm eav •unoX.dprn; Kcmaxuoou ev Tomoi, iced iponcbaetai ae Ktipioq evavtiov TWV ex6pa>v, 'because if you undertake to strengthen [yourself] with these, then the Lord will put you to flight before your enemies'. The phrase ev TOXITOK; may indicate a reading of «cnjJ» for the MT's niou. However, the LXX translator may have been making the best of a difficult text so it is difficult to have confidence in the LXX here. I have translated the particle '3 as emphatic, stressing the result of the conditional clause. Mason (Preaching the Tradition, p. 83) and Dillard (2 Chronicles, pp. 196-97) translate the initial clause ironically, 'Even if you go resolutely . . . '. In all these translations the sense is clear and thus the difficulty is not exegetically critical.

102


are the Chronicler's independent development. The man of God, like all the prophets discussed thus far, addresses the king. In this case, the figure who addresses the king is anonymous.47 Still, the unnamed man of God's speech is not prefaced by an inspiration formula and his authority is implied in his title. Yet his message is similar to that of the seer Hanani in 2 Chron. 16.7-10; he counsels reliance upon YHWH alone. It is clear from the speech that the man of God considers himself to be the mouthpiece of God. He speaks for the deity: 'YHWH is able to give you much more than this!' The anonymous man of God acts as a royal advisor, warning the king not to go to war with the mercenaries. He justifies his advice before the king's questioning (v. 9b). The role of warning has not been prominent in the prophets discussed thus far. In fact, later in this same chapter Amaziah points out to an anonymous nabi' that he is not a 'royal advisor' (2 Chron. 25.16; see below). The differences may perhaps be accounted for by the role label 'man of God' which the Chronicler gives to this anonymous person. As was pointed out in Chapter 1, 'man of God' is not a strictly prophetic title. The title is employed for characters such as Moses and David. The Chronicler avoids calling characters such as Shemaiah and Elijah 'man of God'. This title seems to have been more than simply a prophetic role label. Of course, the evidence is rather limited so our conclusions must be tentative. An Anonymous nabi' to the King (2 Chronicles 25.15-16) 15 And YHWH was angry with Amaziah and sent to him a nabi'.4* He said to [Amaziah], 'Why have you sought the gods of people, gods who could not save their own people from your hands?' 16 And while he was speaking to him, [Amaziah] said to the nabi', 'who made you to be an counselor for the king? Cease! Why should they kill you?' So the nabi' ceased, but he said, 'I know that God has counseled to destroy you because you have done this, but you have not listened to my counsel.' [17 Then Amaziah took counsel... ]

This unit plays on the Hebrew root Vp>% 'to counsel, advise'. After the nabi"s advice to Amaziah (v. 15b) the king rebukes the nabi', asking, 47. Williamson suggests, 'The fact that he is unnamed suggests, by comparison with the Chronicler's practice in this matter elsewhere, that he may be composing freely' (Chronicles, p. 328). 48. Rudolph follows the LXX, reading the plural CTK-D: (cf. 2 Chron. 24.19). However, the event requires a single prophet (-intn). There is no reason to suppose that the LXX is a better reading.


103

'Who made you advisor to the king ("j'pQ1? par)?' (v. 16). The nabi ' retorts that God has counseled (yir) to destroy the king for rejecting the nabi"s advice (nss). In spite of this, Amaziah turns around and takes counsel (f JJTI) with his human advisors (v. 17). Amaziah may be compared to Rehoboam who also accepts counsel from foolish advisors (2 Chron. 10.6, 8 // 1 Kgs 12.6, 8). But Rehoboam's advisors are foolish because of youth. In the case of Amaziah' s advisors, there is a contrast between human wisdom and divine wisdom. Amaziah takes the human counsel in lieu of the divine counsel offered by the nabi'. Yet the Chronicler's play on the root Vfy suggests that 'royal advisor' was not a typical role for a nabi'. Here, we may contrast vv. 15-16 with vv. 7-9. The man of God, although not explicitly called a 'royal advisor' , acts in the role of a royal advisor. The nabi ', on the other hand, is explicitly excluded from the role of 'royal advisor'. The nabi"s speech to the king is not prefaced by any inspiration formulas. However, the narrator tells us that YHWH sent a nabi' to Amaziah. Although classical biblical prophecy might have expected a messenger formula to follow (for example, 2 Kgs 19.20; Jer. 19.14-15), the nabi' speaks on YHWH's behalf without any formula. The nabi', speaking at God's behest, claims, 'God has counseled to destroy you... because you did not listen to my counsel' (v. 16b). 'My counsel' is not God's counsel, but instead refers to the nabi"s word which God sent him to speak to Amaziah. God will destroy the king because he did not listen to his servant, the nabi"s counsel. The authority of the nabi"s counsel here recalls the words of Jehoshaphat to the people of Judah in 2 Chron. 20.20:49 'believe in YHWH your God and you will be established, believe in his nebi'im and you shall succeed'. Jehoshaphat' s words suggest that believing in the nebi'im is the same as believing in God. Similarly, the anonymous nabi' equates following his counsel with following God's counsel. In fact, the nabi"s counsel is God's counsel. The narrator later confirms the nabi"s words. Immediately following the prophetic scene, the narrative moves to a confrontation between Joash and Amaziah (vv. 17-24). Amaziah challenges Joash, the king of Israel, to battle as a response to the looting of Judah by the shunned mercenaries of the northern kingdom (cf. v. 13). Joash warns Amaziah against this foolish engagement, but Amaziah is unwilling to listen (v.20): 49. Many scholars have noted that Jehoshaphat's words rely on Isa. 7.9; for example, see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 386-87.

104

The Word of God in Transition However, Amaziah did not listen, this was because it was from God in order to give them into the hand of «[Joash]»50 because he sought the gods of Edom.

Using a causal clause, the Chronicler explains Amaziah's hardened response: 'it was from God...because they sought the gods of Edom'. This explanation in the narrator's voice echoes the nabf's words and confirms his prophecy. In this example the narrator's interpretation follows a prophetic prediction of judgment. Even in this case where the narrator's comment follows instead of precedes the prophetic speech, a close relationship between the narrator's and the nabf's voice is clear. Oded, the nabt', to the Northern Army (2 Chronicles 28.9-11) 9 There was a nabi' of YHWH there called Oded. He went out before the army who were coming to Samaria and he said to them, 'It was because of the anger of YHWH, the God of your fathers, against Judah that he gave them into your hands and you have killed them in a rage which reaches up to the heavens! 10 And now, you are planning to make the Judahites and Jerusalemites into your slaves, both men and women. Don't you already have enough offenses against YHWH your God? 11 And now, listen to me and return the captives which you have captured from your own kinsmen because the wrath of YHWH is upon you.'

The formal introduction of the nabi' in v. 9 is not typical of the prophetic speech scenes in Chronicles. Simon de Vries describes the form of the tale as an 'anecdote', a sort of 'dramatized sermon'.51 The audience of the nabi"s speech is the army. In the other prophetic speeches, we have seen that the nabi' invariably addresses the king. We may assume that since northern kingship was regarded as illegitimate by the Chronicler, the king was not an appropriate audience (cf. 2 Chron. 13.6-8).52 The prophet is called 'a nabi' of YHWH', an expression which occurs elsewhere in the Deuteronomistic History to contrast the 50. T3 needs to be supplied with an object. BHS suggests emending to ITU, apparently following the suggestion of Origen (see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 446). The LXXL adds icoaq (that is, DKV T3) and the Vulgate adds in manu hostium (that is, D'TiK T3). It is difficult to choose a reading with certainty. The suggestion of Origen requires the least emendation. The Lucianic version may be just an interpretation since Joash fits the context. 51. 'Forms of Prophetic Address', p. 31; also Chronicles, pp. 363-67. 52. Yet, as Williamson notes, Oded's speech has a reconciling effect; Chronicles, p. 346.


105

prophets of YHWH from prophets of other deities.53 The expression may be used because Oded was a northern prophet and the Chronicler might have considered it unusual that a northern prophet was a 'nabi' of YHWH' (cf. 2 Chron. 18.6 with 1 Kgs 22.7). The episode itself is part of the larger unit vv. 9-15, which includes not only the speech of the nabi' Oded but also a speech by one of the leaders of Ephraim (again, not the king). Oded's speech begins with an explanation of a past narrative event (v. 9). The nabi' says that the defeat was a result of their sins against the God of their fathers, thus restating what the narrative has already explained concerning Judah's defeat (2 Chron. 28.2-5). These explanations, of course, fit into the pattern of previous prophecies we have examined. The speech also functions as a warning. Oded warns the Israelites not to make the Judaeans slaves in Israel (vv. 10-II).54 We have also seen warning as an element in some, though not all, of the prophetic speeches thus far. Ironically enough, YHWH's authority underlies the speech of this northern nabi'. Oded sees clearly that the victory against Judah was 'because of the anger of YHWH' and now the wrath of YHWH will turn upon Israel if they keep the captives. However, no inspiration formulas preface Oded's speech. In this respect, Oded's speech is similar to most of the prophetic speeches analyzed thus far. The nabi' again plays the role of warning, only in this case a northern nabi' warns the northern army. Summary The Chronicler's non-synoptic use of prophets contrasts strikingly with his sources. The Chronicler takes five prophetic speech scenes from the Deuteronomistic History which all employ the messenger formula, 'thus says YHWH'.55 On the other hand, no inspiration formulas are used in five of the eight non-synoptic speech scenes in Chronicles.56 The three exceptions which employ inspiration formulas include the prophet Shemaiah's speech which was patterned after 1 Kgs 11.22-24, the speech of Eliezer where the verb 'to act as a prophet' serves in place of 53. Cf. 1 Sam. 3.20; 1 Kgs 18.22; 22.7 (112 Chron. 18.6); 2 Kgs 3.11. 54. See Mason, Preaching the Tradition, pp. 94-96. 55. Cf. 1 Chron. 17.3-15; 21.9-12; 2 Chron. 11.2-4; 18.10-11, 14-16, 18-22; 34.23-28. 56. Cf. 2 Chron. 12.5-8; 16.7-10; 19.1-3; 21.12-15; 25.7-10, 15-16; 28.9-11.

106


a title, and the 'letter' of Elijah which uses the messenger formula. Of course, the 'letter of Elijah' is not technically a 'speech' and its form may explain the use of the messenger formula. The exceptions in this case only serve to emphasize the difference between the Chronicler's Vorlage and other prophetic literature. When the Chronicler borrows from his sources, they invariably employ some type of inspiration formula (cf. 1 Chron. 17.4; 21.10; 2 Chron. 11.4; 18.10; 34.23). When the Chronicler composed independently, he tended not to use inspiration formulas for his professional prophets. The lack of inspiration formulas underscores a growing authority in the prophetic title. Often, the prophetic title alone bears the authority necessary for the prophet to speak for God. Prophets and seers claim to know the divine will and to speak for God. The knowledge of the divine will includes an insight into past events and foreknowledge of future events. Thus, the seer Hanani can explain how God had helped Asa in the battle against the Cushites and the prophet Elijah can predict that God will afflict Jehoram with a painful disease. The prophets and seers play the role of warning the king, although the role is not consistently applied to them.57 More frequently, the prophets and seers understand how YHWH has acted or will act; thus, they play the role of interpreter of the past and the future for the king. The predominance of interpretation over against warning can be seen in the chart provided below: PERSON Speaker

Title

Shemaiah Hanani Jehu Eliezer Elijah Anonymous Anonymous Oded

nabi' ro'eh hozeh nabi' nabi' man of God nabi' nabi'

FUNCTIONS Interprets

Warns

Exhorts

secondary secondary

A primary role of the prophet then is to explain and interpret the relationship between action and consequence. The Chronicler thus portrays the prophets and seers primarily as interpreters of events. Only 57. Contrast Seeligmann, 'Die Auffassung von der Prophetic', pp. 275-76; Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, pp. 176-91.


107

secondarily does the prophet serve as one who warns the king. The prophets properly speak to the king. Usually the audience is the king alone, although in one case the royal officials are included (Shemaiah) and a northern prophet (Oded) does not address the king. The restricted audience means that the prophet sometimes has a dialogue with the king. For example, the anonymous 'man of God' is questioned about his word by the king (2 Chron. 25.7-9). The king actually interrupts the nabi' in 2 Chron. 25.15-16 when he speaks to him. The hozeh Jehu goes out to 'meet' the king; the confrontation is 'face to face'. Likewise, the seer Hanani 'comes to the king' to speak to him. The prophet's primarily royal role is typical of classical prophecy.58 In this respect, the figures discussed follow a classic prophetic model. The Chronicler's prophets warn the king as part of the role of advisor to the king. The use of the prophets to advise and counsel probably reflects a post-exilic tendency. This is underscored by the increasing recognition that apocalyptic has roots not only in prophetic literature, but also in wisdom literature.59 Counsel (rrai>) characterizes the sage, just as cultic instruction (mm) characterizes the priest and the word (~Q"0, the prophet.60 In the Second Temple period, the roles of sage and prophet intertwined. This is evidenced, for example, by the increasing prominence of the scribe-sage Baruch vis-a-vis Jeremiah.61 The examples of the anonymous 'man of God' and nabi' in 2 Chronicles 25 address the role of the prophet as a royal advisor. In 2 Chron. 25.7-9 the king accepts a 'man of God' as an advisor, but in 2 Chron. 25.17-19 the king adamantly rejects a nabi' as a royal advisor. The play on the root Vf y, 58. Cf. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Literature, pp. 155, 166. 59. See G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology. II. The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions (ET; New York: Harper & Row, 1960), pp. 418-59; M. Knibb, 'Prophecy and the Emergence of the Jewish Apocalypses', in Anderson and Harrelson (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Tradition, pp. 155-56; Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, pp. 116-23. 60. See TDOT, III (1978), p. 109. 61. This example was first pointed out to me by J.E. Wright; see 'Baruch the Ideal Sage', in J. Coleson and V. Matthews (eds.), Festschrift for Dwight W. Young (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming). Note the increasing importance of Baruch in the later MT version of the book of Jeremiah as compared to the earlier LXX version. In addition, Daniel can be seen as a prophet though he is a 'wise man' in Babylon; see further J.J. Collins, 'The Sage in Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphic Literature', in J. Gammie and L. Perdue (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 343-54.

108


'to counsel, advise', is certainly self-conscious in 2 Chron. 25.17-19. The use of wisdom terminology probably reflects the increasing importance of the prophet-sage in the post-exilic period. Still, the prophet's role as advisor is deeply rooted in ancient Israel. The prophets Samuel, Nathan, Gad and Elisha all act as advisors to the crown.62 Thus, while the Chronicler's use of the term 'counsel' (usu) may be influenced by postexilic ideas, the prophet's role as advisor to the king draws on established traditions. Inspired Messengers The Chronicler has a limited corpus of 'inspired' speeches by figures not labeled as 'prophets'. We will call them here 'inspired messengers' (see discussion in section 1). In all, five speech scenes are prefaced by inspiration formulas. In the use of inspiration formulas for these inspired messengers, the non-synoptic speech scenes contrast sharply with the speech scenes borrowed from the Chronicler's sources. Samuel-Kings does not employ inspiration formulas for inspired messengers. Thus, the inspiration formulas for inspired messengers occur only in the non-synoptic passages. As noted in Chapter 1, a variety of characters are inspired by the spirit to deliver divine messages. These include a soldier, a Levite, a priest and a pharaoh. Another speech is delivered by Azariah son of Oded who was probably the high priest (2 Chron. 15.1; see discussion in Chapter 1, section 2 under 'possession formulas'). However, Azariah has no title which would place him in a social role. The inspiration formula prefacing Azariah's speech is nevertheless characteristic of nonprophets. Amasai, a Soldier, to David (1 Chronicles 12.19) And the spirit enveloped Arnasai, the chief of the thirty, «and he said»:63 To you, O David, and with you, O son of Jesse, may there be peace! 62. Saul seeks the prophet Samuel's advice even beyond the grave (1 Sam. 28). Cf. 2 Sam. 7.1-4; 24.10-19; 1 Kgs 1; 2 Kgs 5.8; 13.14-19. However, this advice would generally be termed 'the word of YHWH' (mrr nm) rather than 'counsel' (nxr). 63. D'tfi'ptfn follows the kethib, cf. 1 Chron. 12.4; the qere reads D'tiôn, 'the captains', which is not substantially different. I added TO\> mí f| pacriXeía OCUTOXI ecovo, KOCÍ ó Gpóvog a-útoíi ecruai ávajp6a>névo, 'from before me' (= 'DSâ), that is, Saul was turned away from YHWH's presence. The focus is taken off David in the LXX and thus remains on Solomon. This is similar to vv. 4 and 11, where the focus is also on Solomon. A consistent theological slant underlies the variations in the LXX. It seems unlikely that the LXX faithfully represents an ideologically changed Hebrew Vorlage since there is no Hebrew Vorlage which corresponds to all the changes in the LXX. The changes in the LXX reflect a theology of the temple's centrality and legitimacy.49 The subtle negative 47. In one case, we should follow the LXX reading, evcbniov euovi, and emend ~\l'sh in Samuel to «''3S'p». This textual error can be explained as a simple case of dittography which was undoubtedly conditioned by the use of the suffix ~\- elsewhere in the verse. See already Ehrlich, Randglossen, HI, p. 289. 48. The differences between 2 Sam. 7.15 and 1 Chron. 17.13 only clarify the difficult syntax of 2 Sam. 7.15. 49. Underlying the LXX translation is the interpretation of the 'place' (dps) in v. 10 as the temple; the interpretation of mpo as the temple is typical of later Jewish interpretation (for example, m. Ab. 3.4). In the MT this 'place' is the land of rest

3. The'Word of God'in Tradition

153

attitude towards the temple in the MT of 2 Samuel 7 is thus undone by the LXX translator. Solomon rather than David becomes the focus of the oracle. Whether this 'revisionism' in the LXX here is intentional or subconscious is difficult to ascertain.50 In any event, this case shows that the LXX should be employed with great care in textual emendation, especially in a theologically loaded text such as 2 Samuel 7. In sum, the LXX's textual variants are independent of Chronicles and do not undermine the originality of the Chronicler's rewriting of 2 Samuel 7. Still, the LXX interprets 2 Samuel 7 in much the same manner as Chronicles. The LXX translation focuses attention away from David and the Davidic Dynasty and toward Solomon and the Solomonic temple.51 Differences between Samuel and Chronicles underscore the Chronicler's temple ideology. In 1 Chron. 17.4, the interpretation of Samuel's rhetorical question, 'Shall you?', as a negative statement, 'It is not you', emphasizes that Solomon will be the temple builder. The subtle addition of the definite article to the noun, 'the house', reinforces the centrality and exclusivity of the temple. The Chronicler picks up this motif again in speeches which David makes to Solomon and the people (cf. 1 Chron. 22.7-10; 28.2-4). The message Solomon sends to Hiram echoes the very language in the dynastic oracle. In 2 Chron. 2.2 Solomon says that he wants 'to build for him [YHWH] a house for him to dwell in'. This is a paraphrase of 2 Sam. 7.5b and 1 Chron. 17.4b. which David has forged with God's help (cf. vv. 1, 11). See A. Cowley, 'The Meaning of tfipij in Hebrew', JTS 17 (1916), pp. 174-76; cf. 1 Chron. 21.22, 25. See the interpretation of 2 Sam. 7, and in particular, the mpo of v. 10 in 4QFlor (11. 1-3; also see comments of J. Allegro, 'Fragments of a Qumran Scroll of Eschatological Midrdshim', JBL 11 [1958], p. 351). Note that in Chronicles' interpretation of this passage which focuses even more strongly on Solomon as the chosen temple builder, the references to the rest of the land in 2 Sam. 7.1, 11 are omitted and revised. This is undoubtedly because the notion of 'rest' in Chronicles is associated with the temple and not the land; cf. 1 Chron. 22.9; 23.25-27; 28.2. 50. Michael Fishbane emphasizes the difficulty of determining whether exegetical manuevers are 'aggressive or naive'. He writes, 'an interpreter may well have often believed that his interpretation was the explicit articulation of the received content of the tradition and that individual talent was marked by its very ability to perform this feat' (The Garments ofTorah, p. 17). 51. For a more detailed analysis of the LXX's pro-temple Tendenz, see my article, 'Textual Criticism and Theological Interpretation: The Pro-Temple Tendenz in the Greek Text of Samuel-Kings', HTR 87 (1994), pp. 107-16.

154


2 Chron. 2.2 uses the same vocabulary and follows the same word order. Thus, there can be little doubt that the Chronicler wished to recall the dynastic oracle. Ironically, the Chronicler recalls a text which emphasized the building a house for David and not a temple for YHWH. The Chronicler uses both omission and rewriting to convey an ideology of rest for the temple. The Chronicler omits 'and YHWH gave rest to him [David] from all his surrounding enemies' from 2 Sam. 7.1b (cf. 1 Chron. 17.1). Next, the Chronicler rewrites the phrase 'and I gave rest to you [from all your enemies]' in 2 Sam. 7.11, changing it to 'and I humbled [all your enemies]' in 1 Chron. 17.10. Chronicles dissociates the notion of rest from the land and from David. According to the Chronicler's ideology, rest is associated with the actual building of the temple by Solomon. The essential feature of the Chronicler's theology, as Gerhard von Rad notes, 'is not that the nation finds rest, but that God finds rest among his people!' (cf. 2 Chron. 6.41).52 Thus, the temple is 'the house of rest' (nrriM rra) and Solomon is 'the man of rest' (nrraa BTK; see 1 Chron. 22.9; 28.2). While Chronicles refrains from saying that YHWH gave rest to David, it attributes this to Solomon. David reports YHWH's promise in 1 Chron. 22.9, 'and I shall give him [Solomon] rest from all his enemies'. The Chronicler uses the exact language from 2 Sam. 7.11. Roddy Braun concludes, 'With these two alterations he [the Chronicler] has transferred the 'rest' essential for the construction of the temple from the reign of David to the reign of Solomon'.53 The omission of rest for David also serves the Chronicler's placement of chs. 18-20. These chapters tell of David's military victories. David, the man of war, gets the land ready for Solomon, the man of peace, to build the temple. Other changes in the dynastic oracle also reflect the Chronicler's ideology. For instance, the Chronicler omits 2 Sam. 7.14b, which describes disciplining the Davidic kings. As Williamson notes, in the Samuel text, it refers to the whole future line of Davidic kings, to many of whom the saying could have applied, but in the Chronicler's text it would have to refer to Solomon, for whom it could have no application whatever.54 52. There Remains Still a Rest for the People of God: An Investigation of a Biblical Conception', in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (ET; London: SCM Press, 1966), p. 98. 53. Braun, 'Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder', p. 585. 54. Williamson, Chronicles, p. 136.


155

Scholars have also pointed out the omission of 'from Egypt' (2 Sam. 7.6) in 1 Chron. 17.5. This coincides with other omissions of the exodus motif from the Chronicler's work.55 Sara Japhet suggests that Chronicles omits slavery, exodus and conquest because the people and its God 'cannot be associated with a particular moment in history, for [they have] existed since the beginning of time'.56 These omissions illustrate the Chronicler's willingness to rewrite prophecy so as to fit his historical schema. Recontextualizing the Dynastic Oracle within Chronicles The rewriting of the dynastic oracle continues when it is recontextualized in later speeches of David. The books of Chronicles refer to the dynastic oracle at several junctures in the process of temple building. First, David recalls the dynastic oracle in his charge to Solomon to build the temple. When David has finished making preparations for the temple, he recalls the dynastic oracle in a charge to the people to help Solomon build the temple. As Solomon begins to build the temple, he recalls the dynastic oracle. Finally, after the temple is completed, Solomon recalls the dynastic oracle in a speech before the whole assembly. 1 Chronicles 22 and 28 address two questions which could legitimately be asked based on the dynastic oracle in 2 Samuel 7: did YHWH really want a temple and why was Solomon chosen to build the temple? David's charge to Solomon in 1 Chron. 22.6-10 recalls and elaborates the dynastic oracle: 6 And [David] summoned Solomon and enjoined him to build a temple for YHWH, the God of Israel. 7 And David said to Solomon, 'My son, I wanted to build a temple for the name of YHWH my God, 8 but the word of YHWH came to me saying, "You have shed much blood and have fought great wars; you shall not build a temple for my name since you have shed much blood before me on the ground. 9 Yet, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of peace and I shall give him rest from his enemies on all sides. For Solomon shall be his name and peace and 55. These include 1 Kgs 6.1, cf. 2 Chron. 3.1-2; 1 Kgs 8.21, cf. 2 Chron. 6.11. Von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes, p. 65; Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, p. ix; Japhet, The Ideology of Chronicles, pp. 379-86; idem, 'Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles', JBL 98 (1979), pp. 205-18; Brunet, 'Le Chroniste et ses Sources', pp. 361-62. 56. The Ideology of Chronicles, p. 386.

156

The Word of God in Transition tranquillity I shall give to Israel in his days. 10 He shall build me a temple for my name and he shall be as a son to me and I shall be as a father to him. I shall establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever".'

David's speech borrows heavily from the dynastic oracle. David's desire to build a temple hearkens back to 1 Chron. 17.1-2; the prohibition by YHWH closely paraphrases 1 Chron. 17.4; and the promise of a son follows the wording of 1 Chron. 17.12, 13. The Chronicler also makes significant additions to the dynastic oracle which develop themes from Nathan's prophecy in 2 Samuel 7. David adds new justification for the prohibition: David fought many battles and this excluded him from the task of temple building (cf. 1 Chron. 18-20). In 2 Sam. 7.6-7 and 1 Chron. 17.5-6, YHWH justifies his refusal to David by explaining that he never asked for a temple or desired a temple. The dynastic oracle promises that one of David's sons will follow him, but it does not identify the person. David's charge specifically names Solomon. It reinforces this choice by the pun between Solomon's name (na'pcj) and peace (m^). Finally, Chronicles adds a promise for peace in the days of Solomon. The Deuteronomist explicitly states, in his version of the dynastic oracle, that God granted peace to David from his enemies (2 Sam. 7.1,11). The Chronicler moves these references to peace from David's era from his version to Solomon's era. In David's charge to the people, he again recalls and elaborates the dynastic oracle. In 1 Chron. 28.2-5, we read, 2 And King David stood on his feet and he said, 'Listen to me, my brothers and my people, I wanted to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of YHWH and as a footstool of the feet of our God and I prepared to build. 3 But God said to me, "You shall not build a temple for my name because you are a man of war and you have shed blood". 4 Yet, YHWH still chose me from my father's whole house to be king over Israel forever. Indeed, he chose Judah to be ruler and from the house of Judah, my father's house and from my father's house, he desired me to rule over all Israel. 5 And from all my sons, for YHWH has given me many sons, he chose Solomon, my son, to sit on the throne of the kingdom of YHWH over Israel.'

David indicates that he is recalling the dynastic oracle, saying that he 'wanted to build a house', but God said to him, 'you shall not build a temple' (cf. 1 Chron. 17.4). David's speech actually develops the dynastic oracle as it is presented

3. The 'Word of God'in Tradition

157

in his charge to Solomon (1 Chron. 22.6-10). For instance, the Chronicler omitted the notion of rest in his versión of the dynastic oracle. It reappears in David's charge to Solomon, who is called a 'man of rest' and to whom YHWH promises 'peace in his time'. The Chronicler develops this notion further in David's charge to the people. David calis the temple 'a house of rest' (nrrao ira). Apparently, only the 'man of rest' could build the 'house of rest'. David also says that God debarred him from temple building because he was a 'man of war' (marfTG ttí'«). This, of course, directly contrasts David with Solomon, who is called a 'man of rest' (nmm eh»; 1 Chron. 22.9). David then feels the need to justify his election since God has debarred him from temple building. The need for justificador! arises particularly since David is called a man of war and bloodshed. The Chronicler also develops the notion of the 'kingdom of God' in David's charge to the people. The notion of the 'kingdom of God' is implicit in the Chronicler's reference to 'my kingdom' in the dynastic oracle. However, the suffixes of the term 'kingdom' in 2 Sam. 7.16 (nrftnn) and 1 Chron. 17.14 (nchti) vary in the versions: 2 Samuel, MT

•jro'raBí

2 Kingdoms, LXX

paoiXeía aíiTOÜ = iro^QQi

1 Chronicles, MT 1 Paraleipomena, LXX

Troto! év paaiXeía aÚTOú = T!i3'?Q3i

From this, Steven McKenzie concludes, 'the textual evidence is simply too diverse to allow the variant suffixes in this verse to be explained as the result of theological bias' ,57 However, it is very difficult to trust the LXX as a versión with respect to suffixes. Moreover, the LXX translator's own theological conceptions of the temple come into play in this theologically loaded text. Elsewhere, the LXX actively interprets the text in translating. And Stephen Pisano points out that the LXX has added some insertions 'to complete what in MT was left up to the reader's imagination, or else show the fulfillment of what has been predicted, or the logical sequence to a particular action or situation'.58 In this 57. The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History, p. 64. Contra W. Lemke, 'Synoptic Studies in the Chronicler's History' (ThD thesis, Harvard University, 1963), pp. 43-46; Rudolph, Chronikbücher, p. 135; Brunet, 'Le Chroniste et ses Sources', p. 505; Williamson, Chronicles, p. 136. 58. Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel, p. 67. See H.G.M. Williamson for a balanced review of Pisano's work (JTS n.s. 37 [1986], pp. 45861). Pisano is a little too devoted to the MT; however, his study demónstrales the

158


particular case, the MT of Samuel emphasizes David's kingdom with a second-person suffix. The LXX refocuses attention on David's son, Solomon, with the third-person pronoun conou (= v). The MT of Chronicles places a special divine sanction on Solomon's kingdom by using a first-person suffix. 1 Chron. 28.5 develops the concept of the kingdom of God with the phrase 'the throne of the kingdom of YHWH' (also see 2 Chron. 13.8).59 To be sure, the term 'my kingdom' in 1 Chron. 17.14 implies the concept. In 1 Chron. 22.10, David quotes YHWH saying that he will establish the throne of Solomon's kingdom forever, picking up on part of the dynastic promise to the sons of David (1 Chron. 17.14b).60 The interpretation combines the throne and the kingdom, which are separate items in the dynastic oracle, by using the construct phrase 'the throne of his kingdom'. According to 1 Chronicles 17, the kingdom was YHWH's and the throne was Solomon's. In 1 Chron. 28.5, David paraphrases the dynastic oracle, asserting that Solomon was chosen to sit on 'the throne of YHWH's kingdom'. Again, the throne and the kingdom are placed together; however, now it is 'the throne of YHWH's kingdom'. The idea that the earthly kingdom of the Davidic ruler belongs to God is implicit in the Chronicler's version of the dynastic oracle. The Chronicler also enhances the meaning of the dynastic oracle with allusions to the temple traditions in Psalm 132. The images of 'house of rest' and 'footstool for the feet of our God' describe the temple which David wanted to build in 1 Chron. 28.2. Psalm 132 uses these same images in describing the temple which YHWH promised to build for LXX's own biases and shows the need for an eclectic approach to the text of Samuel. 59. See Japhet, The Ideology of Chronicles, pp. 395-411. 60. Note that 1 Chron. 22.10 uses the same verbal root as 1 Chron. 17.14b (p). The dynastic promise is reiterated elsewhere in Chronicles. For example, we read in 2 Chron. 23.3,

And the whole assembly made a covenant in the house of God with the king and [Jehoiada] said to them, 'Indeed, the son of the king shall rule, just as Yahweh promised concerning the sons of David'. The Chronicler justifies the restoration of Joash to the throne with an appeal to Yahweh's promise concerning the royal house (cf. 2 Kgs 11.4). This somewhat cryptic reference is certainly to the promise in the dynastic oracle (1 Chron. 17.14). SeeH.G.M. Williamson, 'Eschatology in Chronicles', TynBul28 (1977), pp. 145-46.


159

David (vv. 7, 8, 13-14). Psalm 132 might properly be called 'the Dynastic Psalm' because it recalls David's desire to find 'a place for YHWH' (v. 5; cf. 2 Sam. 7.2,10), that is, a resting place for the ark. The phrase 'a house of rest for the ark of YHWH's covenant' in 1 Chron. 28.2 seems to be influenced by Ps. 132.7-8, 'Advance, O YHWH, to your resting place, you and the ark of your power'. Chronicles' account of the dedication of Solomon's temple even cites these verses (2 Chron. 6.41-42), even though scholars usually associate Psalm 132 with the ark narratives.61 Psalm 132 also promises that David's sons will sit on his throne forever (vv. 11-12, 17). Psalm 132 assures us that YHWH has chosen Zion for his eternal dwelling (vv. 13-14). By recalling some images from Psalm 132, the Chronicler opens up the whole world of images which that tradition represents. The Chronicler's treatment of the dynastic oracle thereby involves a larger circles of traditions. The Chronicler draws on the dynastic oracle to make Solomon's palace a physical manifestation of the promise to the sons of David. Just as the temple becomes a physical manifestation of the kingdom of God in Chronicles, so also Solomon's palace becomes a physical manifestation of the kingdom of David. This is accomplished through a deft allusion to the Chronicler's dynastic oracle. In 2 Chron. 1.18 (Eng. 2.1), the Chronicler introduces the narratives concerning the construction of the temple with the following statement: 'And Solomon commanded the building 62 of a house for the name of YHWH and a house for his kingdom'. In this verse, the Chronicler rewrites the history of Solomon.63 The language recalls the dynastic oracle in Chronicles where YHWH promises to establish Solomon 'in my house and in my kingdom forever' (1 Chron. 17.14; cf. 2 Sam. 7.16). In the Samuel version of the 61. See H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60-150 (ET; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), pp. 472-83. 62. The construction ~om plus the infinitive conveys a command rather than a decision; thus, 'Solomon commanded the building of a temple' rather than 'Solomon decided to build the temple'. The Chronicler wished to avoid the inference that Solomon (and not David) decided to build the temple. The Chronicler even changes n-3 rim1? -IQK '33m in 1 Kgs 5.19 to rra mia '3« '33m in 2 Chron. 2.3. 63. Williamson argues that the Chronicler borrows from 1 Kgs 5.19 (5.5) in this verse: Chronicles, p. 197. We may perhaps see influence from 1 Kgs 5.19 in 2 Chron. 1.18, but the Chronicler has entirely recast it. In fact, the critical exegetical move is the marriage of the temple and the palace which does not occur in the Kings text. Thus, Curtis is right in concluding, 'This verse is entirely from the Chronicler' (Chronicles, p. 320).

160


dynastic oracle, 'house and kingdom' refer to David's lineage and his kingship. In the Chronicles version, 'house and kingdom' refer to YHWH's 'house' and YHWH's 'kingdom'. These notions are concretized in 2 Chron. 1.18. The 'house of YHWH' is the temple and the 'house of the kingdom' is evidently Solomon's palace. This interpretation is further buttressed by the repetition of the 'house and kingdom' ideology in 2 Chron. 2.11: And Huram said, 'Blessed is YHWH, God of Israel, who made the heavens and the earth, who gave to David, the king, a wise son endowed with discretion and understanding, who shall build a house for YHWH and a house for his kingdom.

The parallelism here between 'a temple and a palace' again plays on the parallelism in 1 Chron. 17.14, 'my house and my kingdom'. The language of 1.18 and 2.11 further develops the notion of the kingdom of YHWH. In 1 Chron. 28.5, David says that YHWH choose Solomon 'to sit on the throne of the kingdom of YHWH'. The Chronicler apparently understood this image quite literally. As we see in 2 Chron. 1.18 and 2.11, Solomon's palace is actually the seat of the kingdom of YHWH. In sum, the Chronicler rearranged his source so that Solomon's construction of his own palace is an implicit part of the dynastic promise! The dynastic oracle, which started as a promise for a Davidic dynasty, ends up as a promise for a temple and a royal palace, both of which are in some sense divine. The Chronicler also changes the conditions of the dynastic oracle. The Deuteronomistic History makes the eternal promise to David conditional upon his sons 'walking before YHWH' (cf. 1 Kgs 8.25). In Solomon's speech dedicating the temple, the Chronicler makes the dynastic promise dependent upon keeping of law. This maneuver is accomplished by altering the phrase 'to walk before me' in 1 Kgs 8.25 to read 'to walk in my Tor ah' in 2 Chron. 6.16. Thomas Willi suggests that the Chronicler introduces 'a theology of the Holy Scriptures'.64 The Chronicler certainly does make fulfillment of the dynastic promise dependent on the obedience to written provisions. The command 'to walk before YHWH' was essentially a warning against serving other gods. Yet the injunction 'to walk in my laws' implies a broader set of commandments. 64. Die Chronik als Auglegung, p. 125. Also see I.L. Seeligmann, The Beginnings of Midrash in the Book of Chronicles', Tarbiz 49 (1979-80), pp. 14-32 (Hebrew).

3. The 'Word of God'in Tradition

161

Tradition, Transition and Context The Chronicler boldly rewrites the word of God. This rewriting has evoked some harsh criticism from modern scholars. For instance, R.H. Pfeiffer expresses a critical evaluation of the Chronicler's conduct: 'In accordance with his premises, he deals with Samuel and Kings arbitrarily, rewriting whatever suits his purpose with complete freedom and no scruples about historical accuracy or verisimilitude'.65 So it has seemed to many who have compared the Chronicler's work with his sources. But the Chronicler's exegetical and theological rewriting and recontextualizing should not be considered a case of 'pious fraud' ,66 Michael Fishbane points out, One of the features that emerges prominently is the fact that for innerbiblical exegesis there is no merely literary or theological playfulness. Exegesis arises out of a practical crisis of some sort—the incomprehensibility of a word or a rule, or the failure of the conventional tradition to engage its audience.

This is indeed the case when Chronicles resignifies the 'word of YHWH' and rewrites the prophecies of Samuel-Kings. The Chronicler is not merely manipulating sources for political reasons. The Chronicler revitalizes the traditions of Samuel-Kings for a new generation. The new terms and prophecies speak to a new generation of Israel, the post-exilic community. The Babylonian exile precipitated a religious crisis for the people of Israel. One of the results of this crisis was the gathering and codifying of the traditions of Israel. As a consequence, the written word of the Torah and the prophets became increasingly important in post-exilic Israel. In Ezra-Nehemiah we begin to see the emerging importance of the written word and the priest-scribe. The written word would gradually replace the oral words of the prophets. This written word included first of all the Torah. And, as Deuteronomy had suggested, this law was given by prophetic revelation to the prophet par excellence, Moses. It is not 65. Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 3rd edn, 1941), pp. 802-803. 66. Such was the evaluation of C.C. Torrey, The Chronicler as Editor and as Independent Narrator', AJSLL 25 (1909), pp. 157-73, 188-217. 67. The Garments of Torah, p. 16.

162


unnatural then that the books of Chronicles considered the Mosaic law to be the 'word of YHWH'. It was also natural for the priests, Levites and scribes to be given the task of interpreting and applying this law for a new generation of Israelites. The Chronicler's post-exilic setting also influences his rewriting of prophecies from Samuel-Kings. The Babylonian exile threatened the existence of the Jewish people. From this threat comes the harsh reactions to interreligious marriages which we see in Ezra-Nehemiah (for example, Ezra 9-10),68 reflecting a general tendency toward exclusivity and isolationism in the post-exilic Jewish community. These attitudes are also reflected in the Chronicler's recontextualization of the Micaiah narrative. The Chronicler rewrites the introduction so that the prophetic narrative no longer addresses the issue of true and false prophecy, as in the Deuteronomic History, but the issue of foreign marriages (Ahab to Jezebel) and alliances (Jehoshaphat with Ahab). The Chronicler's rewriting and recontextualization of the dynastic oracle was influenced by the increasing importance of the temple and declining influence of the Davidic dynasty in post-exilic Israel. The LXX reflects similar attitudes in its translation of the dynastic oracle. But this reinterpretation should not be construed as malicious. Even now, the contemporary situation of the modern authors constrains their interpretation no less than the Chronicler's situation colored his writing of the history of Israel.

68. Cf. J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), pp. 173-79; T.C. Eskenazi, 'Out from the Shadows: Biblical Women in the Postexilic Era', JSOT54 (1992), pp. 25-43.

Chapter 4 DIVINE INSPIRATION AND THE LEVUICAL SINGERS

Many scholars have noted the key role which the Levites play in the books of Chronicles. This preeminent role of the Levites in Chronicles probably reflects their role in post-exilic Israel. Gerhard von Rad, for instance, writes, 'The place of the Levites in the organism of post-exilic Israel is the central concern of the Chronicler'.1 According to the Chronicler, the north rejected the Levites, but Judah gave them a prominent position (2 Chron. 11.13-14; 13.9-11). The Levites' position was now alongside the priests and in service of the priests.2 Their role also included instructing the people in the Torah (2 Chron. 17.8; 19.8-9), a role perhaps parallel to the 'teaching priest' (cf. 2 Chron. 15.3). In addition, some Levites became the tax collectors for the temple (2 Chron. 24.5-11; 34.8-12), gatekeepers outside the temple (2 Chron. 5.4, 11-13; 7.6; 8.13-15; 23.2-8, 19), and singers in the temple (cf. 1 Chron. 25.1-6). The prominence of the Levites in Chronicles has led some to believe that the Chronicler was himself a Levite and perhaps a levitical singer.3 Understandably then, the levitical singers have been a focus for research on cultic prophecy and late biblical prophecy.4 1. Das Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes, p. 119. 2. Cf. 1 Chron. 23; 2 Chron. 5.4-13; 7.6; 8.13-15; 23.18; 29.3-36; 30.15-17. 3. For example, S. de Vries suggests that the Chronicler was a Levite (perhaps a member of the singers), 'Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles', JBL 107 (1988), pp. 619-39. Morton Smith also argues that the Chronicler's 'work is dominated by the political and theological interest of the Judaean levitical party to which he belonged' (Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament [London: SCM Press, 2nd edn, 1987], p. 3). Although the technical term 'levitical singers' is customarily used in the scholarly literature, this is to some extent a misnomer. The duties of the levitical singers involved both the playing of musical instruments and singing (cf. 1 Chron. 25.1-3; 2 Chron. 29.30). 4. The consensus of scholarly opinion has supported H. Gese's division of the history of the levitical guilds into four stages:

164


1 Chronicles 25 is the pivotal text which describes the levitical singers in a prophetic role. According to 1 Chronicles 25, David installed Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun as the leaders of the temple musical guilds. Verse 1 describes them as prophesying («3]n) with musical instruments and v. 6 gives them the title of 'royal hozeh1, 1 Chronicles 25 itself is part of the broader unit including chs. 23-27 which is often assigned to a secondary redactor. Thus, the place of these chapters in the redaction of the books of Chronicles is critical to any discussion of the levitical singers and warrants a closer investigation.

L n.

niA. IJJB.

At the return from the Exile, the singers were simply called 'sons of Asaph', and are not yet reckoned as levites (Ezra 2.41; Neh 7.44); In Nehemiah's time, the levitical singers were reckoned as levites, and are in two groups, the sons of Asaph and the sons of Jeduthun (Neh. 11.3-19 and 1 Chron. 9.118); In 1 Chron. 16.4-12; 2 Chron. 5.12; 29.13-14; 35.15, the levitical singers are now in three groups, Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun. In 1 Chron. 6.31-48 and 15.16-22, Jeduthun is replaced by Ethan, and Heman is now more prominent than Asaph.

('Zur Geschichte der Kultsanger am zweiten TempeF, in Vom Sinai zum Zion, pp. 147-58). A significant problem with Gese's chronology is his dating of texts. For instance, Gese assumes, without adequate evidence, that Chronicles' genealogies in ch. 9 are earlier than ch. 6. He does not address the dating of some critical texts, for example, 1 Chron. 25.1-6. The dating of these texts is extremely tenuous and hardly makes for a reliable basis for diachronic reconstruction. A rather different view of the history of the levitical guilds is proposed by Nahum Sarna. Sarna argues that 'Psalms and Chronicles must both represent genuine preexilic, if irreconcilable traditions' (The Psalm Superscriptions and the Guilds', in S. Stein and R. Loewe (eds.), Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual History Presented to Alexander Altmann [University of Alabama Press, 1979], p. 283). Although Chronicles repeatedly emphasizes the Davidic origin of the levitical singers (2 Chron. 8.14; 23.18; 29.20, 25; 35.15), the association of David and the Psalms is limited, for the most part, to the first two books of the Psalter. This suggests that the Davidic superscriptions crystallized early, at least earlier than the books of Chronicles. Sarna argues that the Kohathites and the Hemanites who are accorded such prominence in the Psalter and Chronicles did not even exist as guilds beside the Asaphites in the post-exilic period. The antiquity of the cultic guilds is also supported by Baruch Levine and W. Watson; see B. Levine, The Netinim', JBL 82 (1963), pp. 207-12, and W. Watson, 'Archaic Elements in the Language of Chronicles', Bib 53 (1972), pp.195, 204-205.

4. Divine Inspiration and the Levitical Singers

165

Excursus: The Redaction of 1 Chronicles 23-27 Many scholars have argued that 1 Chronicles 23-27 is 'secondary' to the Chronicler's work.5 Several scholars have observed the narrative repetition in 1 Chron. 23.1-2 and 1 Chron. 28.1. They have suggested that this repetition marks an editorial insertion. Thus, these chapters could not be used in assessing the Chronicler's own thought and purposes. W. Rudolph states the position succinctly: 'it is commonly acknowledged that 23.2 is taken up again in 28.1 so that 23.3-27.34 represent an extensive insertion'.6 These scholars then posit a series of related editorial additions concerning the cultic organization of the temple elsewhere in Chronicles. H.G.M. Williamson, Sara Japhet and most recently John Wright have argued against this approach to chs. 23-27. Williamson has presented a sophisticated analysis of chs. 23-27 which suggests there are two redactional layers within the material.7 He attributes the shorter first layer to the Chronicler and a second layer to a 'pro-priestly reviser'. Williamson's analysis thus avoids making a complex series of deletions elsewhere in Chronicles. Japhet argues for the essential unity of Chronicles as a work by an author or editor who writes material and also integrates earlier texts.8 She notes that Chronicles 'attempts to combine a number of divergent trends without fully harmonizing them'.9 By so understanding the Chronicler's compositional procedures, Japhet eliminates the need for many source-critical solutions. Wright points out a close connection between 1 Chronicles 23-26 and the order of temple personnel elsewhere in Chronicles.10 This suggests the inadequacy of the approaches which treat chs. 23-27 as a secondary intrusion. 5. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler, pp. 81-96; J. Rothstein and J. Hanel, Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik (Leipzig: Deichert, 1927), ad loc.; M. Noth, The Chronicler's History (ET; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, pp. 152-53; Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung, pp. 194-204. 6. Chronikbiicher, p. 152. 7. H.G.M. Williamson, 'The Origins of the Twenty-Four Priestly Courses', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (VTSup, 30; Leiden: Brill, 1979), pp. 251-68. 8. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, p. 9, esp. n. 26. 9. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, p. 142. Japhet is referring in this particular instance to 1 Chron. 21.28-30. 10. J.W. Wright, The Legacy of David in Chronicles: The Narrative Function of 1 Chronicles 23-27', JBL 110 (1991), pp. 229-42.

166


Initially, it was the narrative repetition between 1 Chron. 23.1-2 and 28.1 which led scholars to attribute the intervening material to a secondary redactor. These verses both state that David gathered all Israel together. Source criticism employs repetition of this type to distinguish different traditions. However, repetition may also be used redactionally and authorially.11 Authorial use of repetition in Chronicles usually involves the Chronicler's reworking of sources, for example 2 Chron. 12.2, 9 (// 1 Kgs 14.25) and 2 Chron. 16.7, 10 (cf. 1 Kgs 15.22ff.).12 Thus, the repetition in 1 Chron. 23.1-2 and 28.1 is typical of the Chronicler's compositional procedures. The Chronicler uses repetition as a literary technique in compiling and editing his divergent sources. Moreover, the verbs for assembling used in 23.2 and 28.1, 'to gather' (VÔN) and 'to assemble' (Vbnp), have different narrative functions in Chronicles. John Wright points out that bnp connotes 'a formal assembly that culminates in a cultic ceremony'. On the other hand, the term *]OK 'has the more general connotation of the gathering of goods or persons into a specific location'.13 Thus, the variation in terms underscores the fact that the Chronicler has a literary purpose for the repetition in 23.1-2 and 28.1. Repetition does not mark ipso facto different sources; it can also be compositional feature. This is its most likely function in 1 Chron. 23.2 and 28.1. Scholars also see secondary editing in chs. 23-27 as a result of apparent tensions within these chapters. However, as Sara Japhet has pointed out, the Chronicler's attempt to combine divergent traditions may explain these tensions. The viability of Japhet's methodological approach to the tensions within chs. 23-27 can be illustrated in 1 Chronicles 23. Adam Welch aptly poses the problem in 1 Chronicles 23: The want of unity in authorship appears in the opening chapter [ch. 23], for the same writer cannot be held responsible for the statement in v. 3 that the Levites entered on office at 30 years of age, and for that in vv. 24 and 27 which gave the age as 20.14

11. See B.O. Long, 'Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography', JBL 106 (1987), pp. 385-99. 12. See discussions of 2 Chron. 12.2-9 and 16.7-10 in Chapter 2. 13. 'The Narrative Function of 1 Chronicles 23-27', p. 230. 14. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler, p. 81.


167

This opinion has found acceptance among most commentators,15 but this approach is not entirely satisfactory. Verses 24 and 27 are in fact integral to the Chronicler's treatment of the Levites both in this chapter and throughout Chronicles. The solution to this problem rather lies in an approach suggested by inner-biblical exegesis.16 1 Chron. 23.3 follows the lines of Numbers 4. There, the Levites who begin their service in the house of God are counted beginning at age 30: 'And the Levites were counted from age thirty and above, and their number according to their enrollment of males was 38,000'. 1 Chron. 23.6-23 list the various heads of the levitical clans, while vv. 24-27 modify this age requirement to 20 years following the standard practice from the post-exilic period (cf. 2 Chron. 31.17; Ezra 3.8):17 24 These are the Levites according to their clan, the chiefs of the clans according to their divisions, in the list of names according to their enrollment, those who did the work for the service of the house of YHWH from twenty years old and above. 25 For David said, 'YHWH the God of Israel has given rest to his people and he shall dwell in Jerusalem forever. 26 And also, the Levites no longer must carry the sanctuary and all the vessels for its service.' 27 Thus, by the last words of David the Levites were counted from twenty years old and above.

Verses 24-27 express a theology of rest beginning in the time of David as the reason for the changing of the levitical age. Elsewhere in Chronicles, this theology of rest explains why Solomon will be able to build the sanctuary (1 Chron. 22.9; 28.2). In this respect, the change in levitical age fits with the Chronicler's theology of rest about building of the temple. The Chronicler is saying that although in earlier times the Israelite census numbered the people from 20 years of age, the Levites had an exemption since they had to carry the tabernacle (cf. Num. 1). According to Numbers 4, the Levites are given the task of portage (»ton) and are to be counted only when they become 30 years old because of their duties of temple service (cf. Num. 4.2-3, 21-22, 29-30; cf. Num. 1.47-53; Deut. 10.8). 'David's last words' reinterpret this legislation. They reason that since the Levites no longer had to carry 15. See Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 266-68; Rudolph, Chronikbucher, pp. 156-58; Michaeli, Chroniques, pp. 120-21; Williamson, Chronicles, pp. 160-62; Coggins, Chronicles, pp. 118-20. 16. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, for the most comprehensive treatment of the subject. 1 7 . Curtis surmises that the numbering was changed from 30 to 20 because of the scarcity of the Levites (cf. Ezra 2.40; 8.15): Chronicles, pp. 266-67.

168


the ark, they no longer had to be counted from 20 years old. Josiah's account of the Passover in 2 Chron. 35.3 reflects this explanation: And [Josiah] said to the Levites, who were teaching18 all Israel, who were consecrated to YHWH, 'Put the ark of holiness in the house which Solomon son of David king of Israel built; you no longer must carry it upon your shoulders, now serve YHWH your God and his people Israel.'

The language here echoes 1 Chron. 23.26. The Chronicler appeals to the Levites who 'no longer must carry the ark on their shoulders'. This is an implicit reference to the revision of the levitical function in 1 Chronicles 23 (see esp. v. 26); the reference to the levitical function is closely tied with the change in the levitical age. 2 Chron. 31.17 also mentions the revised levitical age of 20: and the enrollment of the priests was by their clans, and of the Levites it was from twenty years and above, each in their watches by their divisions.

2 Chron. 31.17, 35.3 and 1 Chron. 23.24-27 must derive from the same hand. Rather than suggesting that these texts were composed or inserted by a later editor, it is more likely that the Chronicler was aware that in earlier times the levitical age for service was 30; thus, the Chronicler incorporated an exegetical revision into the source which he was using in 1 Chronicles 23. This explanation accounts for the references in 2 Chron. 31.17 and 35.3. Furthermore, it accords with the way the Chronicler treats divergent cultic traditions elsewhere in Chronicles.19 The revision in levitical age reflects a theology of rest for temple building. This theology of rest contrasts with the Deuteronomic theology of rest for the land and the people. Williamson has argued that these verses reflect 'a different outlook from that of the Chronicler himself since 1 Chron. 17.1 omits the notion of rest in its Vorlage (cf. 2 Sam 7.1) and 1 Chron. 22.9 associates the notion of rest with Solomon.20 However, these references are entirely consistent when we realize that the notion of rest was associated with the building of the temple (see discussion of the dynastic oracle in Chapter 3). The temple was 'the house of rest' (1 Chron. 28.2) according to the Chronicler. Thus, in

18. Kethib, 19. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 134-38, 154-59. 20. Chronicles, p. 162.


169

1 Chron. 17.1 (and v. 11, cf. 2 Sam. 7.10) the Chronicler omits the notion that David gave rest to the land since the Chronicler associated rest with the construction of the temple, not the conquest of the land.21 Then, 1 Chron. 22.9 (which Williamson agrees is from the Chronicler) associates the notion of rest with Solomon, 'the man of rest'. This association undoubtedly arises because Solomon was the temple builder, as the following verse makes clear (22.10). Thus, we see that the theology of rest in 1 Chron. 23.24-27 is entirely consistent with what we find elsewhere in Chronicles. Scholars also point to the tensions between 1 Chron. 23.1-6 and 28-32 when attributing vv. 28-32 to a later editor. Welch reasons that 'the writer entirely departed from the subject, which was stated in v. 6a. Instead of dealing with the levitical courses, he turned his attention to a careful definition of the relation between priest and Levite.'22 However, Chronicles devotes special attention to the relationship between the priest and the Levites throughout its narratives. For example, in the Chronicler's description of the Passovers of Hezekiah and Josiah, the priests and Levites work closely together in the sacrifice (cf. 2 Chron. 30.15-16; 35.3-6, 10-12).23 This coordination is according to the prescription in 1 Chron. 23.2S-32.24 Thus, 1 Chron. 23.24-32, while in tension with the opening of the chapter, is entirely consistent with themes and motifs elsewhere in Chronicles. Verses 24-32 thus appear to be the result of the Chronicler's revision and expansion of a source and not the result of secondary editing. There were two major arguments for assigning chs. 23-27 to a later editor. First, the repetition in 23.2 and 28.1 was thought to be a sourcecritical marker. However, it is clear that the use of repetition is characteristic of the Chronicler's compositional procedures and thus the repetition should be seen as a literary feature rather than a source-critical marker. Secondly, the tension between chs. 23-27 and the other material in Chronicles has suggested that these chapters are secondary. 21. Micheel comes to a similar conclusion, arguing that the Chronicler considered David a 'man of war' (1 Chron. 22.8; 28.3) and Solomon was the 'man of peace'. This explanation would also account for the editing of 2 Sam. 7 without suggesting that there were two redactors; see Die Seher- und Prophetenuberlieferungen in der Chronik, p. 15. 22. The Work of the Chronicler, p. 85. 23. Also see Wright, 'The Legacy of David in Chronicles', pp. 233-37. 24. See also 2 Chron. 5.4-13; 7.6; 8.13-15; 23.18; 29.3-24, 31-36.

170


However, at best this shows that there are two redactional layers within chs. 23-27, as Williamson argues. Moreover, Japhet points out that the Chronicler's compositional procedures elsewhere suggest that the Chronicler was combining divergent sources. Chapter 23 illustrates this type of compositional procedure. Therefore, chs. 23-27 are most likely the work of the Chronicler rather than that of a later redactor or editor. In these chapters, the Chronicler was using sources which are currently no longer extant. No doubt he employed these sources with the same exegetical creativity which he demonstrates elsewhere with his extant sources. Music and Prophecy A growing consensus of scholars recognizes some relationship between prophecy and psalmody.25 The form-critical approach of Hermann Gunkel already recognized the similarities between psalms and prophetic oracles. Gunkel assumed that the liturgical literature was mostly postexilic and concluded that the prophetic oracles must have strongly influenced the psalms. The psalmists borrowed from the prophets.26 Sigmund Mowinckel adopted Gunkel's form-critical approach, but not his chronological assumptions. Mowinckel dismissed the late dating of the psalms and sought the origin and use of the 'prophetic' psalms within the cult. He hypothesized the existence of cult prophets associated with cult music. The musical background of the cult eventually subsumed these cult prophets.27 Aubrey Johnson extends Mowinckel's analysis, arguing that the cultic prophet played a role equal to the priest. Johnson, like Mowinckel, associates the role of the cultic prophet with the later levitical singers.28 Both Mowinckel and Johnson carefully distinguish between the cult prophets and the so-called canonical prophets. The cult prophets 25. See the summary of research by W.H. Bellinger, Jr, Psalmody and Prophecy (JSOTSup, 27; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), pp. 9-21. 26. H. Gunkel, The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction (trans. T. Horner, with an introduction by J. Muilenburg; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967); H. Gunkel and J. Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn, 1966). 27. S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien. III. Kultprophetie und Prophetische Psalmen (Amsterdam: Schippers, 1966), pp. 1-29. 28. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel, pp. 69-74; The Cultic Prophet and Israel's Psalmody, pp. 130-31.


171

participated in the life of the temple, in intercession and in worship. Johnson regards the entire book of Psalms as the work of cult prophets. The broad role which Johnson assigns to the cult prophets reflects the range of Gattungen in the psalms. Thus, the cult prophets would have had roles in the life of the individual (for example, Individual Lament Psalms, Thanksgiving Psalms), the temple (Torah Songs, Entrance Liturgies, Hymns), and the state (Community Laments, Royal Psalms). Johnson argues that the canonical prophets' polemic against false prophets focuses on the cult prophets. Johnson envisions the levitical singers mentioned in Chronicles as a direct continuity with the cult prophets of pre-exilic Israel. Cult prophecy implies a certain fluidity between the prophet and the temple singer. Steven Geller illustrates this fluidity with a Greek analogy: The tension [between prophets and poets] was perceptible to the Greeks. To be sure, they ascribed divine inspiration to both prophets and poets. The muse inspired the latter as Apollo did his Pythian oracle.29

The analogy is instructive. Both the prophet and the poet were inspired, that is, both claimed a divine origin for their words. Yet their inspiration came from different gods. Not only were the gods different, but also the quality of inspiration was different. In Israel, Geller argues, the Jews absorbed poetry into prophecy. Thus, the Psalms were divinely inspired, just like the oracles of the former prophets. Once the psalms begin to be revered as Scripture, their authors, and David in particular, would certainly be considered as divinely inspired.30 In spite of this, there was probably a distinction between musical inspiration and prophetic inspiration. This distinction can be explored with reference to the levitical singers. Tradition credits the levitical singers with writing temple music. The psalm superscriptions, for instance, ascribe some of the canonical psalms to the pens of Heman, Asaph and Jeduthun (Pss. 39, 50, 62, 73-83, 88). The book of Chronicles attributes written psalms to both David and Asaph. According to the Chronicler, during Hezekiah's reform the Levites celebrate by singing psalms written by David and Asaph:

29. S. Geller, 'Were the Prophets Poets?', Prooftexts 3 (1983), p. 211. 30. See J.A. Sanders, The Psalms Scrolls ofQumrdn Cave 11 (4QPS0) (DJD, 4; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 91-93.

172

The Word of God in Transition Hezekiah the king and the officials enjoined the Levites to praise YHWH with the psalms of David and Asaph the seer and they sung joyful praises and bowed down and worshipped (2 Chron. 29.30).

No special inspiration is attributed here to 'the psalms of David and Asaph'. Yet these psalms seem to be legitimated by virtue of their association with David and Asaph. The legitimating of music by association with David, 'the psalmist of Israel' (2 Sam. 23.1), compares with the legitimating of the Jerusalem cult via its association with David, 'the man of God' (2 Chron. 8.13-15).31 According to the Qumran Psalms Scroll, David wrote psalms through prophetic inspiration: And [David] wrote psalms... and the total was 4,050. All these he spoke prophetically which was given to him from before the Most High (1 lQPsa 27.4, 10-11).

The scroll explicitly associates David's prophetic gift with his writing of hymns.32 The Psalms scroll suggests that David wrote psalms for every temple occasion including the Sabbath, daily offerings, new moons, the Day of Atonement and even personal lamentations (cf. 1 IQPs3 27.5-10). While Chronicles does not explicitly associate a prophetic gift with David and Asaph's psalms, it does suggest that the psalms were considered part of the regular temple liturgy. The prophetic title hozeh given to Asaph in 2 Chron. 29.30 relates to his position making music in the temple. All the contexts which employ the title hozeh for the levitical singers are intimately tied with the making of music. 2 Chron. 29.25 places the Levites in the temple with musical instruments 'by the command of David'; v. 26 states that the Levites had 'instruments of David'; in v. 27 the Levites begin to sing 'the song 31. J.W. Kleinig's recent study agrees, and he adds, 'The Chronicler aims to prove the legitimacy of choral music by showing that it was commanded by the LORD and was wholly consistent with the ancient pattern of worship which the LORD had ordained through Moses' (The LORD'S Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles [JSOTSup, 156; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1973], p. 186). As de Vries pointed out, David is patterned after Moses ('Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles', pp. 619-39). 32. Sanders has argued rather convincingly that the implicit claim of the scroll is that David was the author of the scroll. On similar grounds, one may argue that the canonical form of the Greek Psalter which ends with Psalm 151 (cf. 1 IQPs3 28) also suggests Davidic authorship. Contrast the apocryphal work The Martyrdom and Acension of Isaiah which was composed in about the same period but assumes a composite authorship of the book of Psalms (4.21-22).


173

of YHWH'. Just as in 2 Chron. 29.25, 2 Chron. 35.15 places the singers in their positions according to the 'command of David'. Asaph, Jeduthun and Heman are titled 'royal hozeh'.^ The 'command of David' in both these cases must refer to 1 Chron. 25.1-6 where David installs Asaph, Jeduthun and Heman as the heads of the levitical singers. Given this, it seems that the LXX in 1 Chron. 25.5 is correct in translating iîan nm as TO) ocvaKpo'uo|j,evq> TO> paaiXei, 'royal musician', rather than 'royal seer'. The contexts in which the title hozeh is applied to Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun indicate that they were the royal musicians. Their music, as indicated by the use of the verb 'to prophesy' (V«D3), was probably considered as inspired by the Chronicler and his contemporaries. We might call them 'inspired royal musicians'. The Chronicler's ascription of inspiration to the levitical singers is by no means unusual. A close association between music and prophecy may be inferred from many biblical texts. Sigmund Mowinckel has argued that the psalms are prophetically inspired within the cultic context.34 Similarly, Roland de Vaux suggests that 'the Chronicler considered them [levitical singers] as "inspired" and he may have done so merely because the writing and singing of psalms required a kind of inspiration ,..'.35 This opinion is substantiated by 1 Chron. 25.1-6. The production of psalms was apparently considered an inspired act. The close association between ecstatic prophecy and music links divine inspiration and the production of songs. Perhaps the best-known association of prophecy with music is in the account of Saul's prophetic inspiration. The prophet Samuel tells Saul that he is to go to Gibeah where he will meet a group of prophets and will be caught up in their prophetic activity (1 Sam. 10.5-6): 5 After this you will come to the hill of God where there are Philistine prefects and when you come to the city there you shall encounter a band of prophets going down from the shrine preceded by lyres, timbrels, flutes, and harps and they will be prophesying. 6 Then the spirit of YHWH will rush upon you and you will prophesy with them and you will become another man. 33. Most scholars emend to the plural form "[ban 'tn. This emendation is supported by most of the versions, including 1 Esd. 1.15. Whether or not the emendation is accepted, it is clear that the Chronicler is refering to all three heads of the levitical singers. 34. Psalmenstudien, III, p. 3. 35. R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel (ET; New York and Toronto: MacGraw Hill, 1961), p. 385.

174


The hithpael form of the verb 'to prophesy' («33nn) indicates that the band of prophets and Saul were 'acting as prophets', that is, doing things characteristic of prophets. In this case, the characteristic prophetic act is often assumed to be 'speaking in ecstasy'. Music may accompany or be used to induce this ecstatic prophecy. An account in the Elisha narratives is undoubtedly the clearest biblical illustration of the role of music in prophecy. In 2 Kings 3, Jehoshaphat is about to go to war with the king of Israel. He asks to inquire from a nabi' associated with YHWH. They bring the prophet Elisha to Jehoshaphat and Elisha calls for music to be played to induce his prophetic oracle (v. 15): 15 'Now then, get a musician for me.' And when the musician began to play, the hand of YHWH came upon him 16 and he said, 'Thus says YHWH

The music apparently induces an ecstatic state in which Elisha prophesies. The prophet actively calls for the music to induce the ecstatic state. While it must be admitted that this northern prophetic narrative is rather remote from the book of Chronicles, it nevertheless illustrates the close association between music and prophetic speech. The Levitical 'Singers' Cult prophecy is ultimately associated with the levitical singers. Among the cultic personnel, only the levitical singers are called 'seers' and 'prophesy'. Sigmund Mowinckel, for instance, considered the levitical singers responsible for the 'prophetischen Psalmen'. He justified a prophetic label for some psalms by reference to 1 Chronicles 25: And so we understand it also in the case where the Chronicler uses the termnibba (IChron. 25,1, 2, 3) for the functions of the singers or the termnebi'im (so, kethib) for the singers directly: the singers are prophetically endowed and a prophetic inspiration strengthens their skill.36

Mowinckel's reading overlooks the problematic use of the root »2] in 1 Chron. 25.1-3. As will be pointed out below, the use of the term 82] in 1 Chron. 25.1-3 is rather peculiar and belies the special nature of the levitical singers' 'inspiration'.37 36. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, III, p. 22. 37. Von Rad also connected cult prophecy with the levitical singers. In contrast with Mowinckel, who dated the institution to the monarchical period, von Rad


175

The discussion which links prophecy and the levitical singers has focused on three texts: 1 Chron. 25.1-6, 2 Chron. 20.14-17 and 2 Chron. 34.30. For example, D.L. Petersen argues from these texts that the Chronicler has tried to portray the levitical singers as prophets: ... the Chronicler and his redactors have gone to great trouble to argue that the Levitical singers of Israel's past were really prophets ... He once changed one word so that the Levites would appear to be prophets (2 Chron. 34.20 [sic; he means 34.30]). On one occasion he subtly worked with genealogies so that it would appear that David had appointed levitical singers as prophets (1 Chron. 25). He also reconceptualized Israel's holy war so that Levitical prophets were understood to be crucial for Israel's success against her foes (2 Chron. 20). And on another occasion, Levites and Levitical prophets were portrayed as better than priests and given special priestly prerogatives (2 Chron. 29).38

We will examine below Petersen's understanding of 1 Chron. 25.1-6, 2 Chron. 20.14-17 and 2 Chron. 34.30. 2 Chronicles 29 is less critical to the argument than Petersen imagines. While the text does give a special role to the Levites, this does not imply any prophetic status for the Levites as a group. The special role relates to the establishment of the Levites in 1 Chron. 23.28-32, 25.1-6 and 26.1-28. The offhand reference to Asaph as a 'royal seer' (2 Chron. 29.30) hardly supports labeling the Levites as a group 'prophets'. The critical texts for this discussion are 1 Chron. 25.1-6, 2 Chron. 20.14-17, and 2 Chron. 34.30. 1 Chronicles 25.1-6: The Commissioning of the Levitical Singers 25.1 David and the officers of the army set apart for service the sons of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, who prophesied to the accompaniment of lyres, harps, and cymbals. The list of men who performed this work, assigned it to post-exilic Israel. He writes, 'Von jeher stand in Israel die Verbindung mit der Gottheit auf zwei Faktoren: auf dem sakrifiziellen Vollzug des Kultes und auf dem prophetischen Gottesspruch. Das Opferwesen war in Handen der Priester; so blieb die inspirierte Rede, um von den leviten in Beschlag genommen zu werden, und dafi sie weithin ihre Anspriiche realisiern konnten, zeigt der tatsachlich Wirkungskreis, der ihnen als Psalmendichtern oder als Verkiindern, sie es von agendarisch festgelegten oder von freieren Orakeln innerhalb der Tempelliturgie, zustand' (Das Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes, pp. 114-15). The differences between their positions reflect different views on the dating of the Pentateuchal sources. 38. Late Israelite Prophecy, p. 87. 39. Reading with the qere, LTKgan; kethib,

176

The Word of God in Transition according to their service, included: 2 Sons of Asaph: Zaccur, Joseph, Nethaniah, and Asarelah—sons of Asaph under the charge of Asaph, who prophesied by order of the king. 3 Jeduthun—the sons of Jeduthun: Gedaliah, Zeri, Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, Mattithiah—six. [These were] under their father Jeduthun, who accompanied on the harp, prophesied, praising and extolling YHWH. 4 Heman—the sons of Heman: Bukkiah, Mattaniah, Uzziel, Shebuil, Jerimoth, Hananiah, Hanani, Eliathah, Giddalti, Ramamti-ezer, Joshbekashah, Mallothi, Hothir, and Mahazioth; 5 all these were the sons of Heman, the royal seer in the affairs of God to exalt him.40 God gave Heman fourteen sons and three daughters. 6 Each of these was under their father for singing in the house of YHWH to the accompaniment of cymbals, harps, and lyres, for the service of the house of God by the commissioning of the king41—Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman.

Comments. The composition of 1 Chron. 25.1-6 and ch. 25 as a whole relates to the composition of chs. 23-27 discussed earlier. Chapters 2327 are from the Chronicler's hand, but these chapters incorporate earlier sources. This compositional technique is also evident in 1 Chron. 25.1-6. The most obvious indication of an earlier source is in v. 4, the list of Neman's sons. Scholars early recognized that the list of names was unusual. The consensus of opinion now holds that the list was mistakenly understood to be personal names although it was likely either a psalm or incipits to psalms, as will be discussed below.42 The Chronicler erroneously exploits this source in reconstructing the divisions of the levitical singers. The awkward nature of the list proves that the Chronicler was composing from sources and not entirely independently. Verses 1-6 have solicited a wide variety of interpretations by commentators. Here, perhaps more than any other place in Chronicles, we find a high concentration of difficult terms and phrases, including n*$an (v. 1), 40. The phrase pp D'^n1? in v. 5 has spawned a great variety of interpretations. Elsewhere the phrase is employed to heighten the authority and power of a person (for example, 1 Sam. 2.10; Pss. 89.18; 92.11). Most commentators ignore the masoretic punctuation (the athnah) and suggest that God exalted Heman; see Curtis, Chronicles, p. 278; Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, p. 166; Williamson, Chronicles, p. 168. 41. This is freely translated. See Rudolph's translation, 'nach Unweisung des konigs . . . ' (Chronikbiicher, p. 166). 42. Curtis notes that the unusual nature of these names was already observed by Ewald, Wellhausen and Koberle (Chronicles, p. 278). See further Williamson, Chronicles, p. 167; Myers, / Chronicles, p. 173; Rudolph, Chronikbiicher, pp. 16768.


111

K33H (v. 2), K33H ~n3?3 (v. 3), the list of awkward names in v. 4b, and the phrase D'H^Nii "•QID (v. 5). At the outset, the very concentration of obscure readings in these verses suggests that the Chronicler was working with a source or sources. The interpretive problems in vv. 1, 2 and 3 are mutually enlightening. The lexeme n'K33n in v. 1 can be read either D'N33n, 'those who prophesy' with the qere, or D'tân/the prophets', with the kethib. The LXX, aTtocpGeyyouivoix;, 'those who uttered sounds', and the Targum, 1K3]nm, 'those who were prophesying', reflect the qere. In v. 2, the phrase N33H rptf is vocalized as N33n ôt* 'Asaph, who was prophesying', by the MT. The Targum agrees with this reading, translating Ktznip m~i3 '33nfcn, 'who was prophesying by the holy spirit'. However, the LXX reflects a different reading, Aacccp TO\> TipocpriTO'u. This indicates that the LXX has vocalized Nnan, thus giving Asaph the title 'the prophet' rather than calling him 'one who was prophesying'. In vv. 1 and 2 the textual traditions reflect different vocalizations of the root 3. Only in v. 3 is the reading unambiguous. In v. 3, the phrase n Ti3'33 describes a peculiar kind of prophetic activity, namely prophecy connected with music. The LXX translates this phrase ev KWTjpoc dvaKpoDOfievoi, 'with the harp making a loud noise'. The phrase, K33H -11333 must be understood as a verbal clause (not a noun clause) because «3D.n does not follow a proper name as in vv. 1 and 2. This reading naturally influences the readings for vv. 1 and 2. Since the lexeme N33H must be read as a verb in v. 3, it is likely that both trtO]n and K33H should be read as verbs in vv. 1 and 2. In fact, the description in v. 3, N33H 11333, 'who prophesied on the lyre', recalls the qere in v. 1, 'those who were prophesying with lyres, harps, and cymbals'. The association of music with prophecy in vv. 1 and 3 supports the MT and Targum reading in v. 2, 'Asaph who was prophesying' (833n ÔN), over against the LXX reading, 'Asaph the prophet' (Aacccp tot) Tipocpriiot)). The MT and Targum readings are further substantiated by the fact that the title hozeh (Greek, opcovcof;), and not nabi', is the title applied to the heads of the levitical singers elsewhere in Chronicles (cf. 1 Chron. 25.5; 2 Chron. 29.30; 35.15).43 In sum, vv. 1-3 indicate that the heads of the levitical singers were gifted so that they could prophesy through music. 43. It is possible that the Chronicler used a source which referred to the Levites with the title N'Djn, reflecting the role of a cult prophet. However, outside of the heads of the levitical singers the Chronicler evinces no knowledge or understanding of the institution of cult prophecy.

178


The LXX treatment of vv. 1-3 is unusual and merits further discussion. The LXX implies a unique meaning for the root V«3] 'to prophesy' when it is applied to the levitical singers. In 1 Chron. 25.1 the LXX translates those who uttered sounds', and in 1 Chron. 25.3 it translates 'with the harp making a loud noise'. In these two instances, the LXX translation strips from the root VKH] any nuance of divine inspiration, even though elsewhere the LXX translates V«33 with .44 However, in this one case the LXX treats V«3] as if it were related to the Akkadian nabu, 'to call (out)'. What are we to make of the LXX's translation of V«3] in these two instances? It may be an attempt to separate music from prophecy. In v. 5 the LXX translates the title 'royal hozeh1 as iq> ocvccKpo-uouevo) TO> P<xoriA,ei, 'the royal musician', since the job of the 'royal musician' was to give praise 'with the words of God' ( D-rfwn "Q-n). In v. 2 the phrase *ajn *p« is not related to the making of music, but it is interpreted as a title, that is, Acacp TO\) 7ipo<pr|TO'D, 'Asaph the prophet'. The LXX understands Asaph to be a 'prophet' (rcpocpriToq, v. 2) but does not describe his music (vv. 1, 3) as 'prophecy'. It has long been recognized that the names in v. 4b are 'somewhat outside the normal gamut of Hebrew onomastic formations' and that with only slight redivision and repointing they can be read as poetry.45 A tentative reconstruction of the poetry is offered below:

Be gracious to me, YHWH, be gracious to me; You are my God, whom I highly exalt, My help when in trouble, I say. Increase my vision and sign [?].

This reconstruction mostly follows what Williamson has termed 'the consensus of moderate opinion' ,46 The precise reconstruction, if it were 44. See 2 Para. 18.7-12, 17; 20.37. 45. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, p. 65. 46. Williamson, Chronicles, p. 167; see P. Haupt, 'Die psalmenverse in 1 Chronik 25.4', ZAW 34 (1914), pp. 142-45; J. Bohmer, 'Sind einige Personennamen in 1 Chron. 25.4 "kunstlich geschaffen"?', BZ 22 (1934), pp. 93-100; Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, pp. 64-66; Curtis, Chronicles, pp. 277-80; Myers, / Chronicles, p. 173. For a more bold reading of these names, see H. Torczyner, 'A Psalm by the Sons of Heman', JBL 68 (1949), pp. 247-49. For additional bibliography, see Williamson and Petersen.


179

attainable, is not germane to this study. What is interesting, however, is that the Chronicler apparently considered the 'names' to be a genuine genealogical list. Myers has suggested that these 'names' were not actually a short lament, but a series of five incipits, that is, the first lines of five psalms which served as titles.47 Either of these two suggestions is more plausible than suggesting that the Chronicler fabricated this unlikely list of names. Whether this was a short lament or a series of incipits, it demonstrates the type of compositional process at work in Chronicles; namely, the author was working with sources which he did not always properly apprehend.48 Scholars have variously understood the phrase D'n^Nn -"ma in v. 5 in various ways. Williamson follows NEB, translating D'n'pNn "ma as 'according to the promise of God'.49 Curtis suggests either 'with the words of God' or 'by the commands of God' or perhaps 'in divine affairs'.50 The LXX has understood this phrase in a very straightforward manner, translating ev Xoyon; Geou, 'with the words of God'. The Targum translates -" mp p n«i3] 'anaa, 'for Heman, a prophet of the king, with the words of prophecy from God'. Thus, the Targum interprets D-nb^n nm as prophetic revelation received from YHWH. However, in biblical Hebrew the prophetic word is always in the singular, thus D'nb«n ~m and not D'n^Nn nin.51 The most obvious 47. Myers, / Chronicles, p. 173. Compare line la with Pss. 51.3; 56.2; 57.2; cf. line Ib with Ps. 53.2; cf. line 2a with Pss. 34.4; 115.9-11. Similarly, W.F. Albright has argued that Psalm 68 should also be read as a series of incipits that later was mistakenly understood as a psalm; see 'A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalms 68)', HUCA 23.1 (1950-51), pp. 1-39. For a discussion of these kind of incipits in Mesopotamian literature, see S.N. Kramer, 'The Oldest Literary Catalogue: A Sumerian List of Literary Compositions Compiled about 2000 BC', BASOR 88 (1942), pp. 10-19. 48. Elsewhere, I have suggested that the same compositional procedures are involved in the Chronicler's account of Manasseh's reign; that is, the Chronicler utilized an older source which mentioned the prayer of Manasseh and the Chronicler mistakenly understood this prayer to be a prayer of repentance; see my article The Source Citations of Manasseh', pp. 450-61. Similarly, B. Halpern argues for 'misapprehensions' by the ancient biblical historian; see 'The Resourceful Historian: The Song of Deborah and Israelite Historiography', HTR 76 (1983), pp. 379-401. This article is incorporated into Halpern's book, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 76-103. 49. Williamson, Chronicles, p. 168. 50. Curtis, Chronicles, p. 278. 51. The phrase C'n^Kn —m occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible

180


translation then would be 'the affairs of God' as in 1 Chron. 26.32: and David the king appointed them over the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half tribe of Manasseh for every affair of God and every affair of the king

The parallelism between 'the affair of the king' and 'the affair of God' clarifies the meaning of DTT^Kn ~Q"r in that context. This example is instructive for 1 Chron. 25.5. There, Heman is described as 'a royal hozeh with the words of God' ("1212 -pon nrn D'nb^n). Heman' s position as the royal seer is associated with his responsibilities in 'the affairs of God'. Thus, both 25.5 and 26.32 connect the divine affairs and royal affairs. It would seem then that the best understanding of the phrase nvfTKn "~n-n is 'in divine affairs'. What now are we to make of ch. 25? Myers contends that it 'is an attempt to authenticate the position of the levitical singers by referring the origin of their position to David' ,52 The association of the levitical singers to David occurs throughout Chronicles. For instance, the opening genealogies ascribe the organization of the levitical singers to David (1 Chron. 6.16): And these [the sons of Levi, cf. vv. 1-15] David appointed to be in charge of song in the house of YHWH, from the time the ark came to rest.

Myers' analysis, namely that the Chronicler tries to authenticate the levitical singers' position, implies that temple singers originated in the post-exilic period and perhaps even that the Chronicler fabricated their position in the temple. However, this position is difficult to sustain. 1 Chron. 25.1-6 obviously draws on a source or sources and is not the Chronicler's independent composition. Moreover, v. 1 states that 'David and the army officers' set up the guild of levitical singers. If this were a late invention, the Chronicler would not have included the army officers in an attempt to authenticate the levitical singers' position in the temple. It is easy to see how the prophets Gad or Nathan might be used by a post-exilic author to further substantiate David's establishment of the levitical singers, as they are in 2 Chron. 29.25. Yet it is difficult to see occurs three times; 2 Sam. 16.23; 1 Kgs 12.22; 1 Chron. 26.32). The phrase mrr nan occurs only 17 times (mrr nai occurs 313 times); some of these occurrences may result from dittography and others should be translated 'the affairs of YHWH'; see Exod. 4.28; 24.3, 4; Num. 11.24; Josh. 3.9; 1 Sam. 8.10; 15.1; Jer. 36.4, 6, 8, 11; 37.2; 43.1; Ezek. 11.25; Amos 8. 11; 2 Chron. 11.4; 29.15. 52. I Chronicles, p. 111.


181

why the army officers would be included in post-exilic explanation of the establishment of the levitical singers. The conclusion seems unavoidable that the Chronicler is relying on an earlier source in this reference. Where, then, are the origins of the levitical singers? We may assume that the same questions which surrounded the legitimacy of the Zadokite priesthood in the post-exilic period also surrounded the temple singers.53 H. Gese has argued that the post-exilic references to the levitical singers are not monolithic.54 Consequently, Gese sees a diachronic development towards associating the temple singers with the Levites. The association of the temple singers with the Levites, and in particular with Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun, undoubtedly lent antiquity and authenticity to the levitical guild. On the other hand, Nahum Sarna has argued that these references go back to authentic, albeit different, pre-exilic traditions.55 The difficulties in 1 Chron. 25.1-6 would support Sarna's argument. Yet it is difficult to know the exact extent of the Chronicler's sources. There obviously were traditions which connected the levitical singers with the pre-exilic cult and with David in particular. The antiquity and reliability of these sources and the Chronicler's use of them is a debate which is beyond the scope of this study. There is also a tendency in Chronicles to distance the levitical singers from David. For instance, ch. 25 also attributes the division of the priestly courses to 'the casting of lots' (v. 8). Williamson suggests that there are two principles for organization: (1) division by David and (2) choosing by lots. The latter Williamson ascribes to the work of a 'pro-priestly revisor'. However, it is difficult to see the hand of this revisor elsewhere in Chronicles. For instance, 2 Chron. 29.25 jointly ascribes the origin of the levitical singers to David, Gad and Nathan. This belies a tension between prophetic and Davidic authority for the institution. On the one hand, scholars who consider 1 Chronicles 23-27 a secondary insertion often assign the verse to an editor. Yet the correspondence between 1 Chron. 25.1-6 and 2 Chron. 29.25 is far from exact. Consider 2 Chron. 29.25, 53. On the Zadokite priesthood, see A. Cody, A History of the Old Testament Priesthood (AnBib, 35; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), pp. 88-93; H.H. Rowley, 'Zadok and Nehushtan', JBL 58 (1939), pp. 113-41. Cf. M. Haran, Temples and Temple Service (repr.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), pp. 7183. 54. 'Geschichte der Kultsanger am zweiten Tempel', pp. 147-58. 55. Sarna, 'The Psalm Superscriptions and the Guilds', p. 283.

182

The Word of God in Transition And [Hezekiah] stationed the Levites in the house of YHWH with cymbals, harps, and lyres by the commandment of David and Gad the royal hozeh and Nathan the nabi' because the commandment was by YHWH through his nebi'im.

While the association of the temple singers with David is characteristic of 1 Chron. 25.1-6, including Gad and Nathan as co-authorities has no precedent. What is the purpose of mentioning Gad and Nathan here when they are conspicuously absent in 1 Chronicles 25? The mention of Nathan and Gad presumably adds more authority to David's organization of the levitical singers. Thus, the authority of the institution is not only from David the king, but also comes through YHWH's prophets.56 The authority of the prophets and priests supplements David's installation of the levitical singers. Although Myers claims that 1 Chronicles 25 attempts to authenticate the levitical singers' positions by appeal to their Davidic origin, in 2 Chron. 29.25 an appeal to Davidic origin was not deemed sufficient. Thus, 2 Chron. 29.25 appeals to David's authority which he received through the prophets. 1 Chron. 25.8 supplements the appeal to Davidic authority with priestly authority implied by the casting of lots. In both cases, the appeal to Davidic authority alone was not deemed sufficient. 2 Chronicles 20.14-17: The Inspiration of a Levitical Singer The Levite JahazieFs speech prefaces the war between Jehoshaphat and the Edomites in 2 Chronicles 20 which is often discussed under the rubric of the 'holy war'.57 The narrative begins with a report to Jehoshaphat that Moab and its allies were attacking Judah from across the Dead Sea. JahazieFs speech is preceded by a prayer of Jehoshaphat (vv. 3-12). As 'all Judah stood before YHWH' (v. 13), the spirit of YHWH inspired the levitical singer Jahaziel (2 Chron. 20.14-17): 14 And the spirit of YHWH came upon Jahaziel, son of Zechariah, son of Benaiah, son of Jeiel, son of Mathaniah, the Levite from the sons of Asa, in the midst of the assembly, 15 and he said, 'Listen, all Judah, Jerusalemites, and king Jehoshaphat! Thus YHWH has said to you that 56. See Williamson, Chronicles, p. 358. 57. For example, Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, pp. 68-77. Petersen aptly summarizes the positions of Wellhausen, Noth, Rudolph, Myers and Welten concerning the historicity of the battle recorded in this chapter; see pp. 70-71. However, the historicity of battle is not of particular interest to this study since we are concerned with the Chronicler's perceptions of the Levites' role.


183

you should not be afraid and should not be dismayed before this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's. 16 Fall upon them tomorrow. They will be coming up the Ascent of Ziz and you shall find them at the end of the wadi towards the Jeruel steppeland. 17 It is not for you to fight in this, stand by, wait, and see the salvation of YHWH in your behalf! O Judah and Jerusalem, do not fear and do not be dismayed; tomorrow, go forth against them and YHWH will be with you.'

The speech is usually discussed under the rubric of prophecy because of the possession formula, 'the spirit of YHWH came upon Jahaziel', which prefaces Jahaziel's speech (v. 14). In addition, the speech of Jahaziel includes a form of the messenger formula (see discussion in Chapter 2). These elements certainly prove that Jahaziel's speech was inspired and even 'prophetic'. On the other hand, it was pointed out in Chapter 1 that the possession formula is not typical of prophecy. The possession and messenger formulas only serve to show that the speech was inspired, not that the speaker was a 'prophet'. Jehoshaphat's response to Jahaziel's speech might advance the argument that Jahaziel was a prophet. Jehoshaphat and the Judahites humbly receive the speech of Jahaziel and Jehoshaphat briefly exhorts the people to faithfulness (v. 20). But Jehoshaphat's speech in v. 20b is only loosely associated with its context: Believe in YHWH your God, and you will be established, Believe in his nebi'im, and you will succeed.

The exhortation draws on a different context of impending war, that is, the Syro-Ephraimite alliance against Judah (cf. Isa. 7; 2 Kgs 16.5-6).58 The first verset is usually understood as a direct borrowing from Isa. 7.9b: 'If you do not believe, then you will not be established OnnKD t6 "3 iD'ngin ^ at*)'. Both passages play on the root Vps, 'to believe, establish'. In Isaiah, the prophet is asking Ahaz to believe the prophecy concerning the attack of Aram and Ephraim, namely that YHWH would deliver Judah from their attack. Similarly, Jehoshaphat is asking the people to trust that YHWH will deliver them from the attack of the Moabite coalition. Yet Jehoshaphat does not appeal for the people to believe a prophecy, but rather to believe in YHWH and his prophets. On the narrative level, Jehoshaphat might seem to be asking the people to 58. See M. Fishbane, 'The "Sign" in the Hebrew Bible', Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 1 (1975), pp. 213-14 (Hebrew).

184


believe in the prophecy of the levitical singer Jahaziel. Yet Jehoshaphat's appeal here is to his nebi'im—that is, plural and not singular. Thus, we must assume that Jahaziel is not the only referent, if he is a referent at all. On another level, the significance for the Chronicler's contemporary audience must have been 'trust in the former prophets'—that is, the writings of the former prophets. As Williamson writes, 'By his day, knowledge of God is increasingly through the written, perhaps even canonical, word. Prophecy is now primarily a matter for reinterpretation and application'.59 This is in fact just what Jahaziel's speech was, a reinterpretation of authoritative texts (see discussion in Chapter 2). The Chronicler's reuse of Isa. 7.9 hints that the Chronicler held the writings of the former prophets in great authority. M. Fishbane writes, 'the Chronicler was concerned to emphasize trust in oracles of confidence; but he does so by strongly emphasizing the central role of the prophets, by whose divinely inspired words Israel will find success'. 60 It is a mistake to emphasize too strongly the narrative significance of the phrase 'Believe in his prophets', and thereby assume that the Chronicler purposed to portray Jahaziel and the levitical singers as prophets. In this case we can learn from the reader-response school of literary criticism.61 The meaning of the phrase cannot be understood apart from the readers. The Chronicler has contemporary and homiletic aims in his use of the injunction, 'believe in his prophets'. The Chronicler repeatedly shows himself to be more concerned with his contemporary audience than the past event. History is only the medium of the Chronicler's message. 2 Chronicles 34.30—Prophets Become Levites? The Chronicler has made a significant change in his Vorlage in 2 Chron. 34.30, substituting 'Levites' for 'prophets'. In 2 Kgs 23.2 we read, And the king went up to the house of YHWH along with every person in Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests, the nebi'im, and every 59. Chronicles, p. 299. 60. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, p. 387; see his general discussion, pp. 386-88. A similar view is outlined in Zech. 1.6's reference to the 'former prophets'; cf. Mason, 'Some Echoes of the Preaching in the Second Temple Period? Tradition Elements in Zechariah 1-8', pp. 226-29. 61. See W. Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978); E. McKnight, The Bible and the Reader: An Introduction to Literary Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985).


185

person among the people whether great or small. And [the king] read aloud all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of YHWH.

In 2 Chron. 34.30 we read: And the king went up to the house of YHWH along with every person in Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests, the Levites, and every person among the people whether great or small. And [the king] read aloud all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of YHWH.

The texts are identical except that the Chronicler has substituted 'priests and Levites' for 'priests and prophets'.62 Many commentators note this change, 63 yet it has often been misunderstood and overstated. For instance, von Rad deduces from the difference between 2 Kgs 23.2 and 2 Chron. 34.30 that the Chronicler wished to give the levitical singers 'a prophetic function' ,64 Similarly, Petersen believes that 'this one verse is an instance in which the Chronicler chose to identify the Levites of his own time with the prophets of Israel's past'.65 Von Rad, Petersen and others put an inordinate amount of weight on this alteration. Julius Wellhausen, on the other hand, saw the proper significance of the change when he suggested that Chronicles amplifies 'Levites as leading personalities'.66 Wellhausen also noted in this context that the Targum to 2 Kgs 23.1-2 translates 'priests and prophets' as 'priests and scribes'. This change echoes the frequent expression 'chief priests and scribes' in the New Testament (cf. Mt. 2.4; 16.21; 20.18; 21.15; 27.41; Mk 8.31; 10.33; 11.18, 27; 14.1, 43, 53; 15.1, 31). It is unlikely that the Targum intended to equate 'scribes' with 'prophets'. Rather, the priests and scribes were the leading personalities. The context of 2 Chron. 34.30 supports Wellhausen's explanation. The phrase 'priests and prophets' 62. It is always possible that the Chronicler's Vorlage, which as Lemke ('Synoptic Studies') and others have shown was not the same as the MT of SamuelKings, read 'priests and Levites' rather than 'priests and prophets'. However, since the alteration is clearly in line with the Chronicler's interests in the Levites elsewhere, it seems more likely that this alteration is from the Chronicler's own hand. 63. See Curtis, Chronicles, p. 511; Michaeli, Chroniques, p. 245; Galling, Die Biicher der Chronik, p. 176; Johnson, The Cultic Prophet, p. 72; Myers, II Chronicles, p. 208. 64. Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes, p. 114. 65. Late Israelite Prophecy, p. 85. See also Myers, / Chronicles, p. 171. 66. Prolegomena to the History of Israel, p. 192.

186


occurs within a long list of all the inhabitants of the land: 'the king, along with every person in Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests, the prophets, and every person among the people whether great or small'. Given this context, the question becomes whether the Chronicler replaced 'prophets' with 'Levites' in order to identify the two groups or, more likely, because the Chronicler felt 'Levites' were more appropriate in a list of all the inhabitants of the land and thus should be included in the list. Furthermore, to suggest that the Chronicler replaced 'prophets' with 'Levites' in order to identify the two groups implies that the author of Chronicles assumed an intimate knowledge of the books of Kings on the part of his readers. It is hardly likely that the Chronicler's replacement of 'prophets' with 'Levites' would have been observed except by the most careful synoptic reading of the two works. The Chronicler's replacement of 'prophets' with 'Levites' conforms to his own social reality. That is, prophets were not as significant in the Chronicler's social reality as Levites. For instance, in the books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah we find the phrase 'priests and Levites' 31 times, but we never find the phrase 'priests and prophets'.67 The Chronicler's replacement of 'prophets' with 'Levites' in a list of all the inhabitants of the land probably reflects the Chronicler's notion of who were the more important players in the social organization of post-exilic Israel. The change is a reflex of the post-exilic situation rather than a carefully conceived alteration loaded with theological import. Summary Considering our examination of these texts, the general characterization of Levites as prophets is unwarranted. Prophecy itself is attributed only to the heads of the levitical singers and not to the Levites as a group. Moreover, the primary focus of the Chronicler is the heads of the levitical singers—Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun. Petersen's discussion of the levitical prophecy indiscriminately includes passages concerning all the Levites with those concerning the levitical singers. The Chronicler does 67. Cf. 1 Chron. 13.2; 15.14; 23.2; 28.13, 21; 2 Chron. 8.15; 11.13; 24.5; 30.15, 25; 31.2, 4, 9; 34.30; 35.18; Ezra 1.5; 2.70; 3.8, 12; 6.20; 7.7, 29, 30; 9.1; Neh. 7.72; 8.13; 11.3; 12.1, 30. Moreover, the term 'Levites' is employed at least 139 times in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. We may assume that the social reality which lies behind the frequent reference to the Levites in Chronicles and EzraNehemiah reflects the Chronicler's own experience—even if the two works were not written by the same author.


187

not give any prophetic title to Levites who do not belong to the levitical singers. The Chronicler only portrays the heads of clans in the role of the hozeh because of their role as temple musicians and singers (1 Chron. 25.1-6). Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that music only came to have prophetic nuances in the postbiblical period. In fact, singing was associated with prophecy long before the book of Chronicles was written. The levitical singers' 'prophetic' activity involved composing and performing music in the temple. As Joseph Blenkinsopp writes, 'For the Chronicler, then, the composition and rendition of liturgical music was a form of prophecy. In the act of worship prophetic and poetic inspiration came together.'68 The LXX translation of 1 Chron. 25.1-6, which understands VtO2 as 'making musical sounds', emphasizes the distinction between musical activity and more traditional 'prophecy'. In line with this understanding, the LXX interprets the title given to Heman, 'royal hozeh', as a musical office, namely the 'royal musician'. The LXX underscores the unusual nature of levitical 'prophesying in music'. Thus, the Chronicler apparently did not wish to portray the levitical singers as 'prophets', although their music was apparently divinely inspired. Two questions arise from the study of 1 Chron. 25.1-6: (1) why did the Chronicler employ the verb V«3] in 1 Chron. 25.1-6?, and (2) why is the verb VfcQ] not used in the numerous other discussions of the levitical singers in Chronicles? The second question militates against an easy answer to the first question. These questions are clarified by the compositional procedures in chs. 23-27. As I have argued above, the Chronicler relies on sources in 1 Chron. 25.1-6. The use of V«33 in 1 Chron. 25.1-3 is probably a vestige from one of the Chronicler's sources. This explains why the Chronicler uses the verb in 1 Chron. 25.1-3, but not in any other description of the levitical singers' activities. 1 Chron. 25.1-3 provides further evidence for the pre-exilic institution of cult prophecy envisioned by Sigmund Mowinckel and Aubrey Johnson. Yet the post-exilic institution likely influences the Chronicler's representation of the levitical singers. The Chronicler considered levitical music to be inspired. First of all, the heads of the levitical singers, Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun, are given the title 'royal hozeh'; the LXX suggests understanding this title as 'royal musician'. While not equivalent with nabi', the title 'royal hozeh' has strong prophetic overtones and highlights the authority of their office. 68. A History of Prophecy in Israel, p. 254.

188


The levitical singers as a group were not prophets, yet levitical music had the authority conferred by David, the psalmist of Israel. Several factors indicate the special authority of levitical music. First, David, 'the man of God', established the levitical singers (1 Chron. 25.1-6; 2 Chron. 8.14; 29.25-30) and the prestige of a Davidic origin adds legitimacy to the levitical singers.69 Furthermore, the close association of the musical instruments and songs with David endows levitical music with special authority. The levitical singers play golden musical instruments called 'the instruments of David' (1 Chron. 18.8-10; 2 Chron. 29.26-27; Neh. 12.36). By divine inspiration, they 'prophesied' in music.

69. The authority of the psalms was expressed in early Judaism by associating the corpus with David, the psalmist of Israel (for example, 1 IQPs3 DavComp). Other devices were also used. For instance, Asaph's psalms were considered Tor ah (cf. Tanhuma Re'e §1).

Chapter 5 PROPHECY AND KINGSHIP: DAVID 'THE MAN OF GOD' AND DAVID THE KING

The title 'royal hozeh1 given to Gad belies the close relationship between the prophet and the king (cf. 2 Sam. 24.11). Kingship itself comes through the prophets. The anointing of David as king of Israel comes through the word of the prophet Samuel (1 Chron. 11.3; 12.24), and the promise of an eternal dynasty for the sons of David comes through the prophet Nathan (1 Chron. 17.7-15).! The prophet also checks and balances the authority of the king. He appears as an advisor to the king, often to rebuke or correct him (for example, 1 Sam. 12; 2 Chron. 25.79). Frank Moore Cross represents a consensus of opinion concerning prophecy in ancient Israel when he writes, 'It is fair to say that the institution of prophecy appeared simultaneously with kingship in Israel and fell with kingship'.2 Welch expresses a similar evaluation of prophecy in Chronicles: '[Pjrophecy, which made the kingdom possible and condemned it in the end, accompanied the institution throughout its course'.3 In one respect, the role of the king parallels that of the prophet. Both the king's and prophet's authority emanate from God. The king represents the people before God in secular matters (cf. 1 Chron. 28.5) 1. nabi'Contra Amit who suggests that in the Deuteronomistic History the prophet controls and establishes history and events while in Chronicles the king is the controlling actor, the king is jmpi îsn while the prophet is JTDDI Ehso. Thus, she argues that the king in Chronicles 'is not in need of the prophet' and that the role of the prophets to cause the king to rule is absent in Chronicles; see 'The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Books of Chronicles', pp. 123-24. However, Amit overstates the observation, since the prophetic hand in the kingship of David is undeniable. In the Deuteronomistic History, the prophetic hand is involved in northern kingship and not Judaean kingship after David and Solomon. 2. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, p. 223. 3. The Work of the Chronicler, p. 43.

190


and the prophet represents the people in religious matters. Thus, Solomon prays for the people at the dedication of the temple (1 Kgs 8.11-9.9//2 Chron. 6.1-7.22). Likewise, Jeremiah recognizes the importance of prophetic intercession for the people (for example, Jer. 15.1). God also specially chooses both prophet and king. God ordains Jeremiah to be a prophet before his birth (Jer. 1.5) and also elects David for an eternal kingship (1 Chron. 28.4). The spirit (mi) also rests upon the chosen king in a unique way. This spirit was given to Saul when he was chosen for kingship and taken away from him after he 'disobeyed' and the spirit then came to reside upon the son of Jesse (cf. 1 Sam. 10.6, 10; 11.6; 16.13-16, 23; 18.10). The spirit's inspiration also catapults the heroes of the book of Judges into leadership (Judg. 3.10; 6.34; 11.29; 14.6, 19). The spirit's role in leadership is prominent in the Deuteronomic History. Surprisingly, the biblical description of classical prophecy does not attribute the prophetic endowment to the spirit. Yet in early Judaism and Christianity the prophetic endowment became closely tied with the 'holy spirit'.4 However, these similarities between the royal and prophetic roles have perhaps contributed to the false characterization of the Davidic kings as 'prophets'. Joseph Blenkinsopp describes similarities between prophecy and monarchy as 'parallel endowments' deriving from the Mosaic office. It will be useful to cite Blenkinsopp's argument at length: the term 'servant of YHWH' ('ebed YHWH) was used in Deuteronomic circles for a specially designated intermediary, the model for which was the ministry of Moses himself... Since the prophets also were seen to perpetuate the work of Moses throughout the subsequent history, it was natural that individual holders of the prophetic office and the prophetic succession as a whole should be described in terms of servanthood or mediatorial service. With equal frequency, however, the Davidic ruler is also described as YHWH's servant, the reason being that the monarchy was also charged with the task of mediation, prophecy and monarchy being parallel embodiments of the mediatorial function and charismatic office of Moses.5

Blenkinsopp claims that deuteronomic literature employs the term 'servant of YHWH' both for the Davidic kings and prophets. However, his claim that the term is used 'with equal frequency' for Davidic kings 4. See Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World; cf. also Cant. R. 8; b. Yom. 21b; Num. R. 15.10. 5. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel, p. 215.

5. Prophecy and Kingship

191

and prophets is far from accurate. Blenkinsopp cites 2 Sam. 3.18, 1 Kgs 8.24-26 and 1 Kgs 11.13 in support of this claim; in each of these passages, God calls David 'my servant'.6 First, the term 'my servant' cannot automatically be equated with 'servant of YHWH' (see Chapter 1). Moreover, the frequent use of the term 'servant' to refer to David is surely a special case. The Davidic kings as a whole were not known by the title 'servant of YHWH'. Moreover, the term 'charismatic' does not aptly describe the dynastic succession of the sons of David, although it may be a useful term for the leadership in Judges and perhaps even for Saul and David. Still, the Davidic kings as a whole did not rule a 'charismatic office'. Like Blenkinsopp, studies by James Newsome and Christopher Begg assert that the Chronicler's Davidic kings play a 'prophetic' role. Newsome, for instance, writes: 'under the Chronicler's pen, the Davidic king himself received the divine word and, on several occasions, passed it on to others, thus assuming a prophetic role'.7 However, Newsome's evidence does not bear up under scrutiny. For instance, Newsome claims that Abijah's speech in 2 Chron. 13.4-12 is a levitical sermon 'and thus possesses all the prophetic overtones implicit in that Gattung'.* However, the speech bears no marks of divine inspiration and the 'prophetic overtones' of the 'levitical sermon' are far from established.9 Similarly, Newsome's claim that Hezekiah and Isaiah were 'on an equal footing in presenting their petitions to YHWH' is hardly convincing evidence that Hezekiah should be considered a prophet (2 Chron. 32.20).10 Newsome also notes that in the Chronicler's account, he 'erases Solomon's dreams' (2 Chron. 1.7-13; 7.11-22; cf. 1 Kgs 3.5-15; 9.2) and Newsome thinks this heightens Solomon's 'proximity to God and his revealed will'. However, this is an extraordinary conclusion from the omission of the words 'in a dream'. It 6. Other occurrences of the term 'servant' with the king always refer to David (cf. 1 Kgs 11.32, 34; 14.8; 2 Kgs 8.19; 19.34; 20.6; Jer. 33.21, 21, 26; Ezek. 34.24; 37.25; Ps. 18.1; 36.1; 78.70; 89.4, 21; 132.10; 144.10). 7. 'Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes', pp. 203204. 8. Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes', p. 203. 9. The 'Levitical Sermon' as a genre has come under a great deal of recent criticism; see Mathias, '"Levitische Predigt" und Deuteronomismus', pp. 23-49; Mason, 'Some Echoes of the Preaching in the Second Temple Period? Tradition Elements in Zechariah 1-8', pp. 221-35. See further critique in Chapter 2, n. 73. 10. 'Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes', p. 204.

192


seems more likely that the Chronicler was uncomfortable with dreams as the means of revelation. The fact remains that the Chronicler borrows these texts from his sources so that his omission of 'in a dream' hardly warrants calling Solomon a 'prophet'. Newsome's only compelling examples of prophetic activity relate to David. Christopher Begg's work tries to explain Prophetenschweigen in Chronicles.11 By Prophetenschweigen Begg means 'the absence of prophets' and thus he takes up the precarious work of explaining the absence of the classical prophets in Chronicles. What concerns us here is Begg's treatment of Hezekiah and Isaiah. He asserts that the prophet Isaiah is minimized so Hezekiah may occupy 'center-stage'. Many have noted the prominent position of Hezekiah in Chronicles,12 but Begg takes this observation one step further. He claims that the Chronicler portrays Hezekiah himself as a 'prophetic figure'. He offers the following evidence: (1) Hezekiah pronounces a series of discourses reminiscent of those spoken by prophets elsewhere in Chronicles (2 Chron. 29.5-11; 30.6-9; 32.8-9); (2) he engages in the 'characteristic prophetic activity of intercession' (2 Chron. 30.18-19; 32.20); and (3) YHWH deals directly with him (2 Chron. 32.24-26).13 Thus, Begg essentially claims that Hezekiah becomes a prophet in place of Isaiah. Yet his evidence is unconvincing. Begg's first piece of evidence relies von Rad's analysis of the Levitical Sermon. However, he does not specify what exactly is 'reminiscent' of prophetic speech or which prophetic speeches recall Hezekiah's. A vague similarity between prophets' speeches and Hezekiah's speeches hardly proves that the Chronicler was portraying Hezekiah as a prophet. In his second point Begg argues that Hezekiah is a prophet because he engages in intercessory activity. However, Hezekiah is interceding for the security of the state which is surely a royal responsibility. Moreover, intercession is not confined to prophets;14 11. See Begg's other articles on the topic, 'A Bible Mystery: The Absence of Jeremiah in the Deuteronomistic History', 755 7 (1985), pp. 139-64; 'The NonMention of Amos, Hosea and Micah in the Deuteronomistic History', BN 32 (1986), pp. 41-53, The Non-Mention of Ezekiel in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah and Chronicles', in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), pp. 340-43. 12. See Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, pp. 119-25; M. Throntveit, 'Hezekiah in the Book of Chronicles', in D. Lull (ed.), SBL 1988 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 302-11. 13. Begg, 'The Classical Prophets in the Chronistic History', p. 102. 14. S. Balentine calls into question the prophet's role as intercessor: 'The Prophet as Intercessor: A Reassessment', JBL 103 (1984), pp. 161-73. While the prophet's


193

for example, intercession was certainly part of the priestly duties. Moreover, intercession was a role particularly characteristic of kings, not only in Israel but throughout the ancient Near East. Finally, although God deals directly with Hezekiah, there is no claim to special inspiration or divine revelation. God also deals directly with Manasseh, but surely he is not a prophet (cf. 2 Chron. 33.10-13). Thus, we must reject Begg's assertion that Chronicles portrays Hezekiah as a 'prophetic figure'. Although these studies fail to prove that the Davidic kings were prophets, they do underscore the special role of David. David is YHWH's servant in the Deuteronomistic History. YHWH preserves Judah 'for the sake of his servant David'. YHWH is unwilling to extinguish his lamp in Judah because of the promise to David (cf. 1 Kgs 15.35; 2 Kgs 8.19). In Chronicles, David receives divine revelations which direct him to organize, prepare and build the temple (for example, 1 Chron. 21.26-30; 22.6, 8; 28.19). However, this role apparently comes to David because of his unique position as founder of the cult. As Simon de Vries points out, the Chronicler portrays David as a type of Moses in the role of 'cult founder'.15 Thus, David receives a special role in the books of Chronicles which does not extend to all Davidic kings. The case for David as a 'prophet' requires a close examination. To begin, we must examine the prophetic titles and inspiration formulas which are applied to David. David, the 'Man of God' In two instances it may be alleged that the Chronicler gives David a prophetic title. 2 Chron. 8.14 employs the title 'man of God'. In 2 Chron. 29.25, some scholars suggest that David is 'among the prophets'. However, the prophetic implications in these texts are debatable and require a closer investigation.

role as intercessor should not be overstated, it should neither be discounted, see Y. Muffs, 'Studies in Prophetic Prayer in the Bible', El 14 (1978), pp. 48-54 (Hebrew); English summary, p. 124*. 15. See de Vries, 'Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles', pp. 61939. Also see Braun, 'Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder', pp. 581-90; H.G.M. Williamson, 'The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles', VT 26 (1976), pp. 351-61; and R. Dillard, 'The Chronicler's Solomon', WTJ 43 (1980), pp. 289300. See discussions of the dynastic oracle in Chapter 3 and the levical singers in Chapter 4.

194


2 Chronicles 8.12-15 12 Then Solomon offered burnt offerings to YHWH upon the altar of YHWH which he built before the porch, 13 in the daily requirement, offering according to the commandment of Moses for the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the festivals three times in a year—the feast of unleavened bread, the feast of weeks and the feast of booths.16 14 He set up, according to the ordinance of David his father, the divisions of priests for their duties and the levites for their watches, to praise and to serve before the priests according to the daily requirement, and the gatekeepers in their divisions at each gate, because this was the command of David, the man of God. 15 Now they did not deviate from the command of the king concerning the priests and the levites for every matter and for the treasuries.

This text (v. 14) represents the only time Chronicles gives the title 'man of God' to David. Nehemiah also applies this title twice to David (Neh. 12.24, 36). If we assume that the same author is not responsible for both works, this shows that 'man of God' was a title accorded to David in the post-exilic period, especially by levitical or priestly circles. Why was King David given the title 'man of God'? The question comes into clearer focus when we examine the occurrences of this title in Nehemiah. Both citations relate to the establishment of the levitical 16. The Chronicler is apparently influenced by Lev. 23.37, Num. 28-29 and Deut. 16.1-16 where these offerings are commanded. However, Shaver (Torah and the Chronicler's History Work, pp. 94-96) argues that although the details which the Chronicler adds to 1 Kgs 9.25 indicate a knowledge of Num. 28-29, 'the Chronicler has not adhered strictly to Num. 28-29, which requires five annual feasts, but has rather followed the Deuteronomic calendar (Deut. 16.1-6), which is limited to the three feasts identified at 2 Chron. 8.13'. Thus, Shaver notes the 'ease with which the Chronicler can combine late priestly and Deuteronomic legislation...' However, it is unclear that the Chronicler 'claimed to conform exactly to the torah of Yahweh' as Shaver claims (p. 96). It is also unclear why Shaver insists that the Chronicler must draw on one text or why drawing on several texts indicates fluidity in the Chronicler's 'Pentateuch'. If we compare the rabbinic use of various legal legislations, then we would assume that the rabbis' Torah was also fluid. In fact, the Mosaic authority of the three pilgrim feasts was unquestioned by the Chronicler and his contemporaries. The Chronicler's reference to noa niXD should be regarded as a more general reference to Mosaic legislation. Fishbane suggests, 'Perhaps such formulations as "according to the Torah of Moses" or "according to the law"... were simply meant to convey the elliptical assertion that these ritual acts were performed according to the divine law as exegetically interpreted' (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, p. 534).


195

singers. In fact, Neh. 12.23-24 apparently cites the book of Chronicles as a reference for this institution: 23 The levites, who were the heads of their ancestral clans, were recorded in the 'book' of chronicles down to the time of Johanan son of Eliashib. 24 The heads of the levites were: Hashabiah, Sherebiah, Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, with their kinsmen opposite them, were occupied praising and giving thanks by the command of David the man of God, watch by watch.

Although the reference to 'the book of chronicles' appears to cite the canonical book of Chronicles, this is an unlikely identification. It would require an early dating for the canonical book of Chronicles which most scholars are unwilling to concede.17 At the very least it recalls the genealogical lists in 1 Chronicles 25 which implies that these lists in 1 Chronicles 23-28 were based on earlier documents.18 The 'command of David the man of God' refers to the establishment of the levitical singers (1 Chron. 25). The second text, Neh. 12.36, names David the man of God as an authority for cultic instruments. Nehemiah says that he appointed 'two large thanksgiving choirs and processions' (v. 31) whose members included 'some young priests with trumpets' (v. 35). According to v. 36, some of the sons of Asaph were in the procession and they played 'with the musical instruments of David, the man of God'. In Nehemiah, then, the title 'man of God' is associated specifically with David's role as the founder of the levitical singers. 2 Chron. 8.14 associates the title 'man of God' with David's establishment of the cultic personnel. This includes the divisions of the priests, the levitical watches, the levitical singers and the gatekeepers, all of whom are established 'according to the ordinance of David' (v. 14aoc). Verse 14 actually corresponds with 1 Chronicles 23-26 (see discussion of these chapters in Chapter 4). The 'divisions of the priests and watches of the levites' are laid out in 1 Chronicles 23-24, the 'singing before the priests' reflects the role of the levitical singers in 1 Chronicles 25, and the 'divisions of the gatekeepers' are listed in 1 Chronicles 26. The phrase 'because such was the command of David the man of God' in v. 14bp refers to the command which David gave to Solomon concerning the building of the temple and the organization of the temple personnel (cf. 1 Chron. 28.20-21). And 2 Chron. 8.15 adds 'they did not 17. See the survey by Williamson, 'Eschatology in Chronicles', pp. 120-33. 18. See the comparison by Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, pp. 333-41.

196


deviate from the king's command concerning' these matters.19 Thus, David is called the 'man of God' in relation to his role as cult founder. Verse 13-14 cite both Moses and David as authorities. Von Rad suggests that 'David's law' competes with 'Moses' law',20 while Sara Japhet claims that 'David's authority does not conflict with or supersede that of Moses. Each has his own authority, and David's actions complement and supplement Moses' commandments'.21 In fact, the Mosaic legislation referred to here specifies the appropriate religious 'holidays' (v. 13) for which the various levitical and priestly divisions served according to the ordinance of David (v. 14). In that sense it does not compete with the Davidic ordinances. Yet von Rad correctly perceives that the Davidic ordinances are for a temple which will supersede the Mosaic tabernacle. The Davidic ordinances then both supplement and supersede Mosaic legislation. It seems appropriate then that Chronicles gives David the title 'the man of God', which is often used for Moses in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah.22 Some scholars have argued that since David receives the title 'man of God', it cannot be a prophetic title.23 Indeed, there is some merit to the contention that 'man of God' is not a prophetic title for David. The Chronicler generally avoids this title for his prophets, as I observed in Chapter 1. The title is only used for David in his role as cult founder. On the other hand, the deuteronomic tradition did consider Moses, 'the man of God', also to be a prophet. Chronicles does use this title for prophets such as Shemaiah (2 Chron. 11.2). Moreover, Chronicles ascribes each aspect of David's preparation for the Jerusalem temple to divine revelation. The title 'man of God', even if it is not strictly prophetic, is often used for prophets and resonates with prophetic overtones, especially when it is used for David.

19. De Vries distinguishes between a Mosaic 'authorization formula' and a royal 'regulation formula' partially on the basis of distinctions in vocabulary; see 'Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles', pp. 620-31. 20. Die Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes, p. 136. 21. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, p. 238. 22. Cf. Neh. 12.24, 36; Ezra 3.2; 1 Chron. 23.14; 2 Chron. 30.16; also see Deut. 33.1; Josh. 14.6; Ps. 90.1. 23. See the discussion in Chapter 1, section 1, 'Prophetic Titles', under 'Man of God'.


197

2 Chronicles 29.25 And he [Hezekiah] stationed the levites in the house of YHWH with cymbals, harps, and lyres, according to the command of David, and Gad the royal seer and Nathan the prophet, because the command was from YHWH through his n'bi'im.

Comments. Verse 25 is difficult. The difficulty stems from the peculiar claim that Gad and Nathan along with David established the levitical singers. Elsewhere, Chronicles repeatedly ascribes the establishment of the levitical singers to David (for example, 2 Chron. 8.14; 35.15). This is understandable since David organizes the levitical singers according to 1 Chronicles 25. How then can we account for 2 Chron. 29.25? The easiest solution is emendation. Rudolph, for instance, suggests that v. 25b should be emended as follows, rn-arTa mxan «rrn i-n^Ta *D. However, Rudolph can cite no versional support for this emendation. Moreover, Rudolph's emended text suggests that 'his nebt'im' refers to David's prophets; this is difficult because 'his tfbi'irrf seems to refer to YHWH's prophets. For these reasons Rudolph's emendation should be rejected. James Newsome's approach avoids emending the text. He argues, 'The description of the musical service of praise...in 2 Chr 29.25 seems intended to rank David with the same prophetic status which Gad and Nathan enjoy'.24 Thus, he assumes that the clause 'through his nebi'im' refers not only to Nathan and Gad but also to David. This leaves the question of who the command was given to if it came through Nathan, Gad and David. The natural reading is that the command came through Nathan and Gad and to David. Moreover, Newsome does not address at all the perplexing problem in v. 25: why is the authority for the levitical singers suddenly attributed to Gad and Nathan as well as David? A better solution argues that 'the commandment' (mxnn) in v. 25b is elliptical for 'the commandment of the king'. Chronicles regularly refers to royal commandments, as is illustrated earlier in ch. 29; consider v. 15: And [the Levites] gathered their kinsmen and sanctified themselves and they came, according to the commandment of the king [Hezekiah] by the words of YHWH, to purify the house of YHWH.

24. Newsome, 'Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes', p. 204.

198


The phrase 'according to the commandment of the king' occurs seven times in Chronicles, reflecting a royal order.25 Additionally, the phrase 'according to the commandment of David' occurs five times in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah and refers to David's command to establish the levitical singers.26 Thus, the clause in v. 25b, explains the phrase 'the commandment of David and Gad the royal hozeh and Nathan the nabi"'. The statement elaborates on the mediation process and may be summarized as follows: the commandment to establish the levitical singers came from YHWH through his prophets Gad and Nathan to David the king who issued the order to Solomon. Thus, 2 Chron. 29.25 probably does not include David among the prophets. The role of Gad and Nathan in 2 Chron. 29.25, then, is to clarify the mediation process whereby David commanded Solomon to establish the levitical singers. Divine Revelation to David The Chronicler attributes some special revelation to David from God. This revelation is invariably associated with David's role in the founding of the temple. Some divine inspiration undergirds every aspect of the temple including the mandate for its construction, the choice of site, the revelations of the temple's plan, and the organization of the temple personnel. The Mandate to Build In David's two recountings (1 Chron. 22.8; 28.6) of the dynastic oracle (1 Chron. 17//2 Sam. 7), the role of the prophet Nathan recedes into the background and David claims to have received instruction directly from God to build the temple. In 1 Chronicles 22, David begins preparations for the temple and delivers a charge to his son Solomon concerning its construction (vv. 610): 6 And [David] summoned Solomon his son and commanded him to build a house for YHWH, God of Israel. 7 And David said to Solomon, 'My son, I wanted to build a house for the name of YHWH my God, 8 but the word of YHWH came to me, saying, "you have shed much blood and fought great wars; you shall not build a house for my name because you 25. 2 Chron. 8.15; 24.21; 29.15; 30.6, 12; 35.10, 16. 26. Neh. 12.24, 45; 2 Chron. 8.14; 29.25; 35.15.


199

have shed much blood on the earth before me. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to you, he shall be a peaceful man and I shall give him rest from all his enemies about, for 'Solomon' shall be his name and 'peace' and quiet 1 will give Israel in his times. 10 He shall build a house for my name. He shall be as a son to me and I shall be as a father to him and I shall establish his royal throne over Israel forever"'.

David tells Solomon that 'the word of YHWH came to me, saying ...' This statement is paralleled by 1 Chron. 28.3 where David tells the people 'but God said to me'. The phrase 'and the word of YHWH came to me' in 1 Chron. 22.8 is apparently an intermediary formula. However, the use of the preposition ^ rather than -^ is not typical since the intermediary formula 'the word of YHWH came to' uses the preposition *?R. The preposition

The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (JSOT Supplement Series)

Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period (JSOT Supplement Series)

Second Temple Studies, Vol. 1: Persian Period (JSOT Supplement)

Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period (Jsot Supplement Series, 291)

Understanding the Word (JSOT supplement)

From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah's Thought in Transition (JSOT Supplement)

Second Temple Studies (JSOT Supplement) (v. 2)

The Prophet Elijah in the Literature of the Second Temple Period: The Growth of a Tradition

(A) Prophet in Debate: The Rhetoric of Persuasion in the Book of Amos (JSOT Supplement Series)

Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible (JSOT Supplement)

Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (JSOT Supplement)

Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Book of Isaiah (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Faces of David (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study (JSOT Supplement Series)

King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOT Supplement Series)

God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories (JSOT Supplement)

Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple Period

The Chronicler in His Age (JSOT supplement)

Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls (JSOT Supplement Series)

Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God (JSOT Supplement Series)

From Carmel to Horeb: Elijah in Crisis (JSOT Supplement 85)

The Chronicler's History (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms (JSOT Supplement)

Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets (JSOT Supplement Series)

Wisdom in Transition: Act and Consequence in Second Temple Instructions

The Moses Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

God in the Dock: Dialogic Tension in the Psalms of Lament (JSOT Supplement)

Did Moses Speak Attic?: Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Theme of the Pentateuch (Jsot Supplement Series, 10)

The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (JSOT Supplement Series)

Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period (JSOT Supplement Series)

Second Temple Studies, Vol. 1: Persian Period (JSOT Supplement)

Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period (Jsot Supplement Series, 291)

Understanding the Word (JSOT supplement)

From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah's Thought in Transition (JSOT Supplement)

Second Temple Studies (JSOT Supplement) (v. 2)

The Prophet Elijah in the Literature of the Second Temple Period: The Growth of a Tradition

(A) Prophet in Debate: The Rhetoric of Persuasion in the Book of Amos (JSOT Supplement Series)

Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible (JSOT Supplement)

Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (JSOT Supplement)

Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Book of Isaiah (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Faces of David (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study (JSOT Supplement Series)

King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOT Supplement Series)

God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories (JSOT Supplement)

Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple Period

The Chronicler in His Age (JSOT supplement)

Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls (JSOT Supplement Series)

Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God (JSOT Supplement Series)

From Carmel to Horeb: Elijah in Crisis (JSOT Supplement 85)

The Chronicler's History (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms (JSOT Supplement)

Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets (JSOT Supplement Series)

Wisdom in Transition: Act and Consequence in Second Temple Instructions

The Moses Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

God in the Dock: Dialogic Tension in the Psalms of Lament (JSOT Supplement)

Did Moses Speak Attic?: Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Theme of the Pentateuch (Jsot Supplement Series, 10)

The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOT Supplement Series)

Recommend Documents