Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

CHRONICLERS HISTORY

The history beginning with the books of Chronicles and ending with Ezra-Nehemiah. Since Chronicles ends with Cyrus’ decree allowing the exiled Jews to return home and rebuild the temple and Ezra begins with the same, it has been assumed that these books form part of a greater whole, a unity best explained as the work of a single author or editor. In positing a common authorship for Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, commentators have also cited similar interests in genealogies, the primacy of Jerusalem, the temple, sacrifice, and the relations between priests and Levites. Seen in this perspective, the Chronicler’s history covers an enormous historical span, beginning with the first person (Adam) and ending with the second term of Nehemiah’s governorship.

However, in recent decades the consensus about authorship has unravelled. Some scholars, led by Sara Japhet and H. G. M. Williamson, distinguish between the Chronicler’s history, understood simply as Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah. Seen in this perspective, the Chronicler’s history begins with the first person (Adam) and ends with the Babylonian exile and Cyrus’ summons to return home (2 Chr. 36:21-23). In spite of the growing popularity of the theory of separate authorship, some (e.g., Joseph Blenkinsopp) trenchantly defend common authorship. Others (e.g., Thomas Willi) believe that the Chronicler wrote Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah at two different times in his life.

The debate about authorship has involved at least five major issues. (1) Scholars debate whether the LXX book of 1 Esdras, which begins with Josiah’s reign, continues with the return, and ends with the Feast of Tabernacles (cf. Neh. 8), bears witness to an original unity of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah or represents a secondary adaptation of the same. (2) Commentators disagree whether the style and characteristic language of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah are similar or different. (3) Some scholars view the doublet in 2 Chr. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-3a as evidence for common authorship, while others view it as a secondary seam, artificially linking the two books. (4) Some commentators think that Chronicles betrays a fundamentally different, more conciliatory and open ideology from the more restricted and restricting perspective of Ezra and Nehemiah. But others (e.g., Gary N. Knoppers) think that some of the differences between the theology of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah have been too sharply drawn or that some of these differences can be attributed to different subject matter (the preexilic monarchy vs. postexilic Yehud). (5) Some scholars discern different compositional techniques in Ezra-Nehemiah from those manifest in Chronicles. The authors of Ezra and Nehemiah call attention to sources, such as royal decrees and letters, while the author of Chronicles is said to integrate his sources into his narrative. Similarly, Ezra-Nehemiah evinces a consistent typology: project, opposition, and eventual success, but this dialectical view of history in which one problem (rebuilding Jerusalem’s temple) after another (rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls) is engaged and surmounted is said to be uncharacteristic of Chronicles.

Debate on these five issues has led to inconclusive results. To complicate matters further, it is by no means to be assumed that Ezra and Nehemiah stem from the same author. A close reading of Ezra-Nehemiah suggests that the compositional history of this work was complex. Given the diversity of perspectives in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, it is not surprising that some scholars (e.g., Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, David Noel Freedman, Frank M. Cross) have advanced theories of two or more redactions in the Chronicler’s history. These authors affirm connections between Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, but suggest that more than one individual is responsible for all three works.

What conclusions can be drawn from this ongoing debate? New theories of authorship bear on interpretation. Scholars who hold either to separate authorship or to multiple editions no longer interpret Chronicles with primary reliance upon Ezra-Nehemiah. Because Chronicles is no longer being viewed as inseparable from Ezra-Nehemiah, its characteristic concerns are no longer forced into the mold of Ezra or Nehemiah. Such distinctions have led to a variety of fresh interpretations of both Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah.

Bibliography. J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah. OTL (Philadelphia, 1988); F. M. Cross, “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” JBL 94 (1975): 4-18; D. N. Freedman, “The Chronicler’s Purpose,” CBQ 23 (1961): 432-42; S. Japhet, “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” VT 18 (1968): 330-71; G. N. Knoppers, “ ‘Yhwh Is Not with Israel’: Alliances as a Topos in Chronicles,” CBQ 58 (1996): 601-26; H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah. WBC 16 (Waco, 1985).

Gary N. Knoppers

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

CHRONICLERS HISTORY

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)