Historical Books: 1 Chronicles–2 Maccabeess

Abstract

Historical Books1 Chronicles–2 Maccabeess Christopher T. Begg, Michael W. Duggan, Rhiannon Graybill, and David A. Bosworth 365. [1 Chronicles–Esther] Kerry H. Wynn, "First and Second Chronicles–Esther," Bible and Disability, 121-58 [see #705]. W.'s commentary on the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther begins with the assumption of the scriptural character of this material. More specifically, W. points out that one of the primary interests of the Chronicler was to construct a sustaining identity for the postexilic community notwithstanding the non-restoration of the monarchy, an identity that is meant to transcend limitations of time and space. Another important goal of the Chronicler was to unite the Mosaic and Davidic covenants in such a way as to link worship in the temple with the cultic directives emanating from Moses. The Chronicler also seeks to legitimate the Aaronic priesthood and the Levitical offices. The consistent cultic separation of monarchy and priesthood in 1 and 2 Chronicles shapes and reshapes the interpretation of disability in this material, wherein temple worship has become the basis of the postexilic community's identity. In his chapter in the above-cited work, W. devotes particular attention to the erasure of the story of Mephibosheth in the Chronicler's retelling of Samuel's story of David's rise to power and subsequent reign. In Chronicles, the character of Mephibosheth remains only in connection with a brief genealogical reference to "Meribaal." W. offers a plausible explanation of the absence from Chronicles of the Mephibosheth story as well as that of the adage cited in 2 Sam 5:8 in the Chronicler's version of 2 Sam 5:6-10 in 1 Chr 11:4-9. Specifically, in 2 Sam 5:8 one reads a declaration of David prohibiting access to the temple of certain persons: "Therefore it is said, 'The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.'" Since, however, priests with a disability were permitted in the temple precincts to eat the "most holy" offerings there, the Chronicler's inclusion of this saying would have meant abrogating a tenet of the Mosaic Torah. . . . Though punishment in 1–2 Chronicles has often been connected to non-normate physicalities, W. points out that this connection is not monolithic. In Chronicles, punishment is not always retributive, and non-normate physicalities are not necessarily typical outcomes of such punishment. Rather, punishment in Chronicles is manifested in many ways, sometimes as a means of discipline and sometimes for retribution, but death is a more typical punishment rather than non-normate physicalities. In his study of Ezra–Nehemiah, W. explores the themes of loss and disability, the empirical gaze, and the social construction of models of disability. In these books, one may observe many connections between the loss of community experienced in and after exile and the sense of loss sometimes associated with disability. People with acquired disabilities might, e.g., keenly feel their loss of function, or families might feel intensely the loss that a congenital disability brought with it. For Esther, finally, W.'s focus is on the concept of "passing," a notion of considerable significance for some people with disabilities. At Mordechai's advice, when Esther became a part of Ahasuerus's harem, she kept her Jewish identity secret. W. sees a connection between the independence and self-reliance of the character of Esther and the contemporary independent living movement for people with disabilities. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.] 366. [Chronicles; Samuel; Kings] Benjamin D. Giffone, "According to Which 'Law of Moses'? Cult Centralization in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles," VT 67 (2017) 432-47. The Chronicler, as an early interpreter of Samuel and Kings, alerts us to the diverse understandings of (or emphases regarding) the issue of cultic centralization that are present [End Page 118] in these texts as well as in the Pentateuch. Recent studies have highlighted the Chronicler's apparent intention of bringing his source narratives into conformity with both Deuteronomic and Levitical understandings of the Law. In light of this observation, reading backward from the Chronicler's perspective on cult centralization may help us to evaluate the centralization model presented...