¹ W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher [HAT] (Tübingen, 1955); K. Galling, Die Bücher der Chronik, Esra, Nehemiah [ATD] (Göttingen, 1954).

² Freedman, D. N., “The Chronicler's Purpose,” CBQ 23 (1961), 440Google Scholar.

³ For the sake of brevity, the following abbreviations will be used throughout this paper: C stands for the Hebrew text of 1 and 2 Chronicles; S for that of 1 and 2 Samuel, as does K for that of 1 and 2 Kings; Par (Paralipomena) stands for the Greek version of 1 and 2 Chronicles; and Bas (Basileion) for the Greek version of 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings.

⁴ “Il y a ici une nuance appréciable: pour le Chroniste, seule la tentative a suffià attirer la punition, tandis que dans Sam. c'est l'acte lui-même, le toucher, qui excite la colère de Dieu.” A. M. Brunet, “Le Chroniste et ses sources,” RB 60 (1953), 500Google Scholar.

⁵ This is suggested by the reading κατασχεῖν αὐτήν in Bas. The reading of S is corrupt as it now stands. The verb ωayyišlaḥ needs at least the object 'et yādô to complete its meaning, which in fact is what we have in Bas.

⁶ Similar differences exist elsewhere between the two histories. Cf. 1 Chron. 15:25/2 Sam.6:12; 1 Chron.19:3, 6/2 Sam. 10:3,6 where there can be no question of tendentious changes. Such minor differences are questions of syntax and style, not the theology of the writer.

⁷ Brunet, A. M., RB 60 (1953), 500Google Scholar.

⁸ This is clearly the way all the ancient versions understood it: LXX ὲν, Vulgate in, etc.

⁹ So Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 115; Galling, Chronik, Esra, Nehemiah, 49; Botterweck, G. J., “Zur Eigenart der Chronistischen Davidgeschichte,” Theologische Quartalschrift 136 (1956), 416Google Scholar; E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, Chronicles [ICC] (New York, 1910), 209; A. van den Born, Kronieken (Uitgevers Roermond en Maaseik, 1960), 79; and others.

¹⁰ Cf. for instance, Brunet, RB 60 (1953), 502, n. 4: “L'intention est évidente: il s'agit de donner plus de solennité à la cérémonie liturgique du second transport de l'arche.” He is quoted approvingly by Botterweck, ThQ 136(1956), 419.

¹¹ Cf. 1 Chron.15:2: “Then David said, ‘No one but the Levites may carry the ark of God, for the Lord chose them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister to him for ever.’”

¹² This information has been communicated orally to the writer by F. M. Cross, Jr.

¹³ Chronikbücher, 119. He is then forced to strike the words ωĕʻal dāωîd 'ēphôd bād at the end of the verse as a later intrusion from S.

¹⁴ So for instance, Galling (49), van den Born (83), and Botterweck, ThQ 136 (1956), 419.

¹⁵ “Men ziet, hoe David hier naar oud-Jeruzalemsche traditie als priesterkoning optreedt.” A. van Selms, I Kronieken (Groningen and Batavia, 1939), 143.

¹⁶ Bas reads: καὶ Δαυεὶδ άνεκρούετο ἐν ὀργάνοις ήρμοσμἐνοις ἐνώπιον κυρίου, “and David made music with well-tuned instruments before the Lord.” Such a reading is also presupposed by the Old Latin “percutiebat in organis et armigatis” and also Josephus' “while he himself played the harp and loudly plucked its strings …” (Antiquities VII 85). Perhaps both the Chronicler as well as the LXX tried to make sense out of a text which neither understood.

¹⁷ Cf. Botterweck, ThQ 136 (1956), 424: “18,4 fällt die zehnfache Zahl der Reiter auf: während die Vorlage von 1700 Mann der Wagenbesatzung spricht, die David gefangen nimmt, berichtet der Chronist von 1000 Wagen und 7000 Mann Wagenbesatzung.”

¹⁸ They are also attested by Josephus (Antiquities VII 99), where some MSS set the number of horsemen at 7,000 whereas others put it at 5,000.

¹⁹ Cf. H. Cazelles, Les livres des Chroniques (Paris, 1954), 93: “Cette donnée propre au Chroniste montre qu'il songe aux réserves de bronze que fera David en vue du Temple (22,3).” Similarly, Curtis (ICC, 234); J. W. Rothstein, Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik (Leipzig, 1927), 344; and Galling (58); the latter, however, takes it as coming from the hand of the second Chronicler.

²⁰ Also attested by Josephus (Antiquities VII 106): “… out of which Solomon made the great vessel called ‘sea’ and those very beautiful lavers, when he built the temple of God.” Curtis' suggestion that the half verse found its way into the Greek of Samuel from the Chronicler's version is refuted, apart from its inherent improbability, by the fact that the phraseology in the two versions is not identical; but this one would expect, if the one had been copying from the other. Therefore, the existence of a similar Hebrew Vorlage remains the most reasonable assumption. Professor Cross has informed me that in the verse immediately preceding (2 Sam. 8:7) a plus of Bas over both S and C has now also been attested by 4Q Sam^a, which proves the existence of a fuller Hebrew version of Samuel beyond doubt.

²¹ Cf. Rothstein (380–83); also Rudolph (145f.); and Botterweck, ThQ 136 (1956), 428.

²² E.g., Rothstein (371): “Vs. 16 fehlt in Sam und ist ganz vom chronistischen Autor geschaffen.”

²³ Rudolph (145f.) calls it “eine fortgeschrittene Auffassung, die das überirdische Wesen des Engels kennzeichnet und im AT nur noch bei Daniel (8:16, 12:6) begegnet.” Similarly, Rothstein (371, 382); and cf. also, Curtis (251).

²⁴ Antiquities VII 327–28. That Josephus was not just following the Chronicler in this is seen from his reference to “the shepherd”. That is, his text read όποιμήν (< hārōʻeh instead of the Chronicler's ό άμαρτών < hārēaʻ), a reading which is also attested by many Greek MSS, as well as by the Armenian, Coptic, and Ethiopic versions of Samuel.

²⁵ For a detailed discussion of this text and its implications for the textual criticism of the books of Samuel see F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (Garden City, N.Y., rev. ed., 1961), 188–91. For the most recent statement on the history of the textual traditions by the same author cf. now his article, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judean Desert,” HTR 57 (1964), 281–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁶ This text type undoubtedly also served as the basis for the Greek version of Samuel which was utilized by Josephus. This, of course, greatly enhances the value of the latter for textual criticism in the historical books of the O. T. Consequently, whenever Josephus agrees with the Chronicler against the text of Samuel — as in the above instance — we can no longer automatically assume that he was simply following the Chronicler, but we must seriously entertain the possibility that the text of Samuel at his disposal contained, in fact, such a reading. Cf. also the statement made by A. Mez, Die Bibel des Josephus: untersucht für Buch V-VII der Archäologie (Basel, 1895), 80: “In den Samuelbüchern geht Jos. gegen MT, A, B, mit dem sogenannten lucianischen Texte, dessen Fehlern er folgt, und dessen Worte er zum Teil missversteht.” Similarly, H. St. John Thackeray, Josephus the Man and the Historian (New York, 1929), 83.

²⁷ Cf. Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (New York, 1957), 186. Similarly, Curtis (342); van den Born (142); and Cazelles (140).

²⁸ This is the opinion of Galling (92), who assigns it to his second Chronicler.

²⁹ So also Rudolph (213).

³⁰ It should also be pointed out that this bronze platform, far from being a makeshift device intended to safeguard supposed priestly prerogatives, seems to have had a rather definite cultic function. W. F. Albright has suggested that hebrew kiyyôr goes back to a Sumerian word ki-ur, which means literally “foundation of the earth” and is of cosmic significance. He compares the portable platform upon which Solomon stood with two Syrian monumental representations, in which votaries are seen standing on similar objects, in an attitude of prayer before their deities. Cf. his Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore, 4th rev. ed., 1956), 152–54.

³¹ Cf. Rudolph (219) and R. Kittel, Die Bücher der Chronik (Göttingen, 1902), 120.

³² The opposite may be argued with equal cogency: The Chronicler could have taken it as illustrative of Solomon's power and prestige that the latter should have been so intimately related to the mighty pharaoh of Egypt.

³³ This verse is not to be found in our best MSS of Bas, most of which omit all of vss. 15–25 at this point, though some of them include some of these verses after chapter 10:22 of K. Vs. 16, however, is found only in Hexaplaric MSS, where it is characterized clearly as an addition from the Hebrew by an asterisk.

³⁴ Thus, C. H. Gordon, Introduction to Old Testament Times (Ventnor, N.J., 1953), 182.

³⁵ The name 'abiyyām may not even contain the element yām “Sea,” which indeed would be the only such example in the O. T. onomasticon; the yām could have originated from some kind of hypocoristic ending — ām (n). Cf. also, M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (Stuttgart, 1928), 234.

³⁶ Cf. 1 Chron.8:30, 33, 34; 9:39, 40; and compare with 2 Sam.2:8ff.; g:6ff.

³⁷ Cf. for instance, van den Born (203): “Maar tegelijkertijd overdrijft Kr: Achaz heeft niet I zoon (als in Kg) maar zijn zonen geofferd, en daardoor komt Kr in tegenspraak met zijn eigen vs. 7.”

³⁸ In my dissertation, Synoptic Studies in the Chronicler's History (Harvard, 1964), I have systematically gone through the books of Chronicles and investigated all significant deviations between the synoptic portions of the two histories with a view toward ascertaining the Chronicler's peculiar Tendenz. Of 127 instances examined, I felt constrained to reject more than two thirds as inadmissible for that purpose.

³⁹ It should be pointed out that I am not interested in singling out anyone for particular criticism. The examples of disagreement with the interpretations of other scholars have been chosen at random. Virtually every interpreter of the Chronicler's history has been guilty of such practices at one time or another.

⁴⁰ W. F. Albright, History, Archaeology, and Christian Humanism (New York, 1964), p. 26.

⁴¹ In addition to the instances discussed above (cf. Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 10), there are many others which I had no occasion to mention specifically. For instance, in the twelve chapters of 1 Chronicles (i.e., chaps. 10–21) which have synoptic parallels in Samuel, I have counted nearly one hundred instances in which the LXX of Samuel agreed with Chronicles against the MT of Samuel.

⁴² The situation in Kings is somewhat more complicated. In the earlier portion of Kings, instances of such cross-agreement were still observable, but after 1 Kings 22 they virtually ceased altogether. It appears that in these portions of Kings the original Septuagint translation has subsequently been replaced by a later Greek recension which was in closer agreement with the proto-Masoretic text. This conclusion was first suggested by H. St. John Thackeray's study, “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings,” JTS 8 (1907), 262–78 and subsequently supported by A. T. Olmstead, “Source Study and the Biblical Text,” AJSL 30 (1913), 1–35. who suggested that it was Theodotion's version which had replaced much of the Old Greek in our present books of Kings. Most recently, D. Barthélemy has demonstrated that these sections in Kings are identical in style with the newly discovered Greek Recension of the Dodekapropheton from Qumran. Cf. his important monograph, Les devanciers d'Aquila: Première publication intégrate du texte des fragments du Dodecapropheton (Leiden, 1963). The identity and extent of the various Greek recensions in Kings has received further attention in a recent unpublished dissertation by Father D. Schenkel (Harvard, 1964); and cf. also, Cross' article mentioned in note 25 above.

⁴³ Cf. Nos. 4, 7, and 8 above; see further, Cross, F. M. Jr., “A New Qumran Biblical Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew Underlying the Septuagint,” BASOR 132 (1953), 15–26Google Scholar; by the same, “The Oldest Manuscript from Qumran,” JBL 74 (1955), 147–72; and, “The History of the Biblical Text …,” HTR 57 (1964), 281–99.

⁴⁴ Thus, from the viewpoint of getting at the Chronicler's thought, a critical examination of the synoptic portions is not very rewarding. It would seem that a more promising approach to the Chronicler's thinking would be to concentrate on the many non-synoptic portions of his history, in which he seems to be composing independently of any canonical sources.