I and II Chronicles (review)

Abstract

Hebrew Studies 36 (1995) 209 Reviews It will therefore be of greatest use to students who choose to study biblical Aramaic independently or to instructors who employ an inductive approach to teaching biblical Aramaic. Marvin A. Sweeney School of Theology at Claremont Claremont, CA 91711 I AND II CHRONICLES. By Sara Japhet. The Old Testament Library. pp. xxv + 1007. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993. Cloth, $48.00. This commentary is the result of a lifetime's study of the Book of Chronicles. On almost every page it demonstrates Japhet's command of the literature and issues in Chronicles research. It also complements Japhet's earlier work, recently translated into English, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (Frankfurt, Bern, New York: Lang, 1989 [Hebrew edition, 1977]). In these two monographs, we have a handy reference to Japhet's seminal work on Chronicles. It is difficult to do justice to this massive commentary (over 1000 pages) in a short review. Yet, Japhet has conveniently laid out the issues in the literature as well as her own position and approach in the first fifty pages of the commentary. This will serve to organize my remarks on the commentary . After some perfunctory matters, the introduction addresses the "Scope and extent of the Chronicler's work." Japhet's position in this matter is well-known from her earlier writings, where she first questioned the traditional view of the common authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles. This consensus was shattered first by Japhet (''The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew," VT 18 [1968] 332-372) and then by H. G. M. Williamson (Israel in the Book of Chronicles [Cambridge, 1977]). Although the weight of opinion seems to have shifted to Japhet's position, there is by no means a consensus. In fact, in this same Old Testament Library Series, Joseph Blenkinsopp's commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988) presents the opposite position, restating and fortifying the unity of Chronicles and EzraNehemiah . Two issues have not been emphasized sufficiently in this debate. First of all, there will be natural lines of similarity between the two works Hebrew Studies 36 (1995) 210 Reviews since they both belong, broadly speaking, to the same time period and represent the interests of the temple cult. Second, there will be de facto aspects of divergence since both Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah make extensive use of sources which are often incorporated with only minor editing. With these points in mind, it seems that a consensus may never be reached on the scope of the "Chronistic work," though we certainly can no longer assume that Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah comprised one work. Throughout the commentary Japhet comes out strongly for the unity, if not originality, of Chronicles. Beginning with the influence of Pentateuchal criticism, Chronicles has been variously viewed as resulting from multiple sources, or including secondary lists and registers (e.g., 1 Chr 1-9 and 2327 ), or as being edited and revised. Japhet cogently argues against these approaches, seeing instead "a single author, with a very distinct and peculiar literary method." This method involves the citation and elaboration of a plethora of earlier sources without real interest in "a rational, meticulous harmony of all the possible details" (p. 7). Under the rubric "The Sources and their use" (pp. 14-23), Japhet discusses both the internal evidence for sources and the explicit statements about sources in Chronicles. Scholars have often tied the issue of sources with an apologetic debate concerning the reliability and authority of Chronicles. Although Japhet argues that a wide variety of sources existed and were used by the Chronicler, she rejects the apologetic approach. Even if the Chronicler relied on authentic sources, Japhet points out that they could be used in an uncritical or anachronistic manner. Here, I heartily agree with Japhet. There is abundant evidence for the use of sources in Chronicles. Obviously, the Chronicler relied heavily oli the Pentateuch and Former Prophets; it is also clear that a wide range of lists and genealogical material was available to the Chronicler. However, many will not agree with Japhet"s inclusion of Ezra-Nehemiah among the Chronicler...