Chronicles: Reading Scripture as History

 Chronicles presents as a historical text that replays many of the events covered in Samuels and Kings. Written at a later period it is more of a 'retelling' that to varying degrees changes both the content of the events described (their 'historicity') and the message it is trying to convey. Variations can be minor such is the switch out of outdated language, such as replacing 'baddim’ for 'matot' to describe the poles to carry the tabernacle. Others can seem to be more of a falsification of the historical record, such as the notion that the succession from David to Solomon was smooth and not beset by battles for succession. In either case, however, the thought is that the reader would have been familiar with the earlier accounts, which would have been required for understanding the latter (eg. the case of Saul dying for consulting a median without the story giving rise to this event).

The 'point' or 'design' of the retelling, if not a direct replacement, is to showcase a different theology, a different set of principles or a change post-exilic reality. Different priorities include embedding the authority of the Torah into earlier accounts and bringing earlier events in line with them; prioritising the lineage of Judah; and describing a more direct cause and effect ('measure for measure') between one’s actions and the reward or punishment due for it. The question arises is to how deliberate these variations are, as opposed to being a result of subconscious influence. Are these the 'point' of the retelling or just emergent after the fact?

Marc Brettler asks rhetorically whether certain values such as the stability of the temple make it worth falsifying the sources, or whether the lessons that the Chronicler conveys do not rely on the historicity of the text. Both sides of that dichotomy appeal to a deliberate (and not literally truthful) change of the story. Ultimately, he comes down against this saying there are no internal clues that the text does not depict a real past. The many changes, and impositions, are a result of the natural influence of his language, time and thought.

This approach seems to work fine with modernising language, filling in details influenced by their knowledge of scripture (eg that Uzza did not carry the tabernacle on his shoulders, but in a cart) or natural increments of phraseology (such as the use of phrase "strong and mighty" in relation of succession from David to Solomon to mimic the succession of Moses to Joshua). It may seem less defensible where there is a wholesale restructuring of the text such as moving material from Hezekiah to Solomon, to prefigure Hezekiah. It is hard to imagine this is not deliberate; and if deliberate, how would the author be able to consider it history in our modern sense of the term? Equally, though an act of omission, how would the Author expect people not to believe there was 'really' a battle of succession between the reigns of David and Solomon when it has already been established that the reader must be familiar with the earlier accounts?

It also appears that Marc Brettler (perhaps knowingly) reads a text in much the same way that the chronicler (as a historian) does. That is, he reads additional detail into the historical record based on his assessment of logical plausibility and internal connections between different texts; and does so based on what he believes "must be true" given his modern understanding and critical analysis of the text. In so doing he alters (albeit, no doubt, with a lot of academic support) a traditional reading and ordering of events. This is evident, in a number of the 'impositions' being considered as such due to the belief that the relevant parts of the Torah (eg the "P' texts) were written, and created (or at least canonised) half a millennia later than the Solomonic period. This leads, for example, to the view that the attribution of the (latterly created) tabernacle rites to the Temple as anachronistic. If one has independent reasons (textual or extra-textual) for agreeing with the dating - it is still by no means the only response to deny the modelling of the temple on the Tabernacle. One could, for example, agree with Halivni that these are maculate texts, that record an earlier oral tradition. However, he takes the historians viewpoint that he attributes himself to the Chronicler.