Abstract
A debate has raged since the 19th century over the historical value of the Chronicler's ( = Chr) narrative.' This debate has been particularly acute in the case of King Manasseh since Chronicles' characterization of Manasseh as a repentant king is in direct opposition to 2 Kings,2 which poses Manasseh as the great sinner. The Chr's Manasseh is a paradigm of a contrite sinner, whereas according to the Deuteronomist, Manasseh was the archetypal sinner who was ultimately responsible for the exile. Some scholars have argued for the historicity of Manasseh's alleged Babylonian Captivity and have tried to reconstruct plausible backgrounds for it.3 On the other hand, scholars following in the skeptical vein of C. C. Torrey flatly deny the historicity of Manasseh's trip to Babylon on the basis of the more reliable account in 2 Kings.4 While various archaeological studies have suggested some plausibility in the Chr's account of Manasseh's building,5 this kind of evidence is hardly precise enough to substan-
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
