T H E O X F O R D E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F

THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE

Michael D. CooganEDITOR IN CHIEF

VOLUME 1

Acts–LXX

1

3Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that furtherOxford University’s objective of excellence in research,scholarship, and education.

Oxford New YorkAuckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong KarachiKuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City NairobiNew Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto

With offices inArgentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France GreeceGuatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal SingaporeSouth Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Copyright # 2011 by Oxford University Press

Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016

www.oup.com

Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.

The editors and publisher gratefully acknowledge permission to quote from the New RevisedStandard Version of the Bible, copyright# 1989 the National Council of the Churches of Christ inthe USA. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The Oxford encyclopedia of the books of the Bible / Michael D. Coogan,editor in chief. p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-0-19-537737-8 (set : alk. paper) 1. Bible–Encyclopedias. 2. Bible–Introductions. I. Coogan,Michael David. II. Title: Encyclopedia of the books of the Bible.BS440.O93 2011220.3–dc22 2011013649

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

Zahn, Theodor. Geschichte des NeutestamentlichenKanons. 2 vols. Erlangen and Leipzig: Deichert, 1888–1892. The most comprehensive study of the New Tes-tament canon.

Stanley E. Porter

CANTICLES

See Song of Solomon.

1 AND 2 CHRONICLES

In Jewish tradition, the book is named “sefer dibrêhayyamîm,” “the Book of the Events of the Annuals/Years” or the “Book of the Acts of the Days,” a termoccurring in Kings (1 Kgs 14:19, 29; 15:7, 23, 31; 16:5,14, 20, 27; 22:39, 45 [Heb. 46]; 2 Kgs 1:18; 8:23; 10:34;12:19 [20]; 13:8, 12; 14:15, 18, 28), Nehemiah (12:23),and Esther (2:23; 10:2; in 6:1 the term is interpretedby “The Book of Records / Memoirs,” or vice versa),although none of these refer to our book. Its moreancient name is unknown. Nevertheless, the bookappears with this name in rabbinic literature(e.g., m. Yoma 1:6), and was transliterated as DabreAiamim by Jerome (Prologus galeatus, his introduc-tion to the Latin translation of Samuel–Kings). TheAramaic Targum stresses both of the literary fea-tures of the book, the genealogical lists and thenarratives, by combining the names “The Acts ofthe Days (ptgmy dywmy’ ) and “The Book of Genea-logies” (sefer yh. wsy’; cf. 1 Chr 1:1). In the Septuagint(LXX) Codex Alexandrinus the book is named Para-leipomenon Basileon Iouda, “The Things Omittedconcerning the Kings of Judah,” apparently becausethe book concentrates primarily on the history ofthe southern kingdom of Judah rather than both itshistory and that of the northern kingdom of Israel,as does the book of Kings. The Syriac translation,the Peshitta, names the book sefar berjamîn / debar-jamin (“the Book of the Acts of the Days”), andsimilar to Codex Alexandrinus adds: “the book re-membering the days of the kings of Judah.” How-ever, the other major versions of LXX (CodicesVaticanus and Sinaiticus) name the book simply

Paraleipomenon, that is, “the matters omitted” from1–4 Kingdoms (= MT Samuel and Kings). The latterGreek name was also used in the Old Latin transla-tion. In his Prologus galeatus, Jerome suggested thatit would be more accurate to call the First andSecond Paraleipomenon as “Chronicle of the DivineHistory,” even though in his Vulgate Jerome keptthe Greek name. However, in his translation of theBible into German (1534), Martin Luther followedJerome’s term, and named the book “Die Chronica”or “Das erste und zweite buch der Chronik / Chron-ikbücher.” Shortly after, English translations of theBible (e.g., King James Version, 1611) used “1 and 2

Chronicles / Chronicles,” and other Western trans-lations followed suit.Rabbinic tradition refers to Chronicles as one

comprehensive book (as it also does for Samueland Kings; b. B. Bat. 14b, 15a). This tradition isreflected in a note by the Masoretic scribes at theend of what is now called 2 Chronicles: “The sum ofall the verses of the book is 1,765.” Accordingly, theypointed to 1 Chronicles 27:25 as “the middle of thebook in verses.” Because of its large size, the Greektranslator(s) divided the book into two portions,1 Paraleipomenon and 2 Paraleipomenon, as with theother historical writings, “the books of Kingdoms”:1–2 Kingdoms (roughly = MT 1–2 Samuel), 3–4 King-doms (roughly = MT 1–2 Kings). The division ofChronicles into two books—“1–2 Chronicles”—isfollowed by all Christian translations of the Biblein various languages since antiquity, and also inprinted editions of Jewish Bibles to the present.Canonical Status and Location in Canon. While

Samuel and Kings were included in the seconddivision of the Jewish canon, Nevi’im (Prophets),because of its relatively late composition Chronicleswas not included there but was placed in thethird division, Ketuvim (Writings). This location ofChronicles fits the rabbis’ opinion that the book wascomposed by Ezra and Nehemiah, who were notprophets. According to the Babylonian Talmud(b. B. Bat. 14b) Chronicles is located at the end ofKetuvim. In the Aleppo (ca. 930 C.E.) and Leningrad(or Leningradensis, ca. 1010 C.E.) Codices, Chroniclesis at the beginning of Ketuvim, although in most

120 CANON New Testament

other major manuscripts and early printed editionsChronicles is placed last. Despite its focus on thehistory of the First Temple period, it was placedafter Daniel, Esther, and Ezra-Nehemiah, whichrecount events of later periods. Most likely thisreflects an understanding of Chronicles as a sum-mary of the entire Hebrew Bible, from Adam toCyrus, and therefore is located at its end. Its posi-tive, “Zionistic” intention may have also played arole in its placement at the culmination of theBible (Kalimi 2009, pp. 27–31).No rabbinic text discusses the canonicity of

Chronicles, in contrast to other books in the Writ-ings; but in some Christian communities, such as theSyrian, Egyptian, and Ethiopian churches, its canon-icity was disputed. In the thirteenth century, Hugh ofSaint-Cher (and later also Spinoza; see below) statedhis astonishment at its inclusion in the Bible.In the Septuagint, Chronicles was considered a

historical writing, and was located with other his-torical books, after 1-2-3-4 Kingdoms but beforeEzra–Nehemiah and Esther. Most probably thiswas also the place of Chronicles among the thirteenhistorical books of the twenty-two books of theJewish scriptures that were counted by Josephus atthe end of the first century C.E.: “From the death ofMoses until Artaxerxes . . . the prophets subsequentto Moses wrote the history of the events of their owntimes in thirteen books” (C. Ap. 1.38–41). This order,which originated in the Egyptian Jewish community,is followed in the Vulgate, and consequently in thevast majority of Christian Bibles.Authorship. There is no direct evidence about

either the authorship or the date of composition ofChronicles. According to Baba Batra 15a and talmu-dic sources, the authors of Chronicles were Ezra thescribe and Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah: “Ezra wrotethe book that bears his name [the book of Ezra =Ezra–Nehemiah], and the genealogies of the book ofChronicles up to himself (or, his own time). . . .Whothen completed it [the book of Chronicles]?—Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah.” The exact place wherehe left off is vague, but may refer to 1 Chronicles 6:11[Heb. 5:40], suggesting that Ezra composed from 1

Chronicles 1:1 to 6:11, while Nehemiah composed the

rest of the book, that is, 1 Chronicles 6:12—2 Chroni-cles 36:23. This rabbinic view regarding the author-ship of Chronicles was also accepted by the churchfathers (Curtis and Madsen, 1910, p. 3).In modern biblical scholarship the author of the

book of Chronicles is generally called “the Chroni-cler,” though in previous generations this term wasoften used for the combined work of Chronicles andEzra-Nehemiah, following the rabbinic view, and thefact that a form of Cyrus’s decree ends Chroniclesand begins Ezra, which had suggested to some schol-ars that the books were once joined (see furtherbelow). The identification of the Chronicler, namelythe composer of Chronicles, is unknown. Becausethe author is very much in sympathy with the Levites(1 Chr 15:11–24; 23–26; 16:4, and cf. 2 Chr 34:30 with2 Kgs 23:2), and because he is well-informed aboutthe Temple and Temple rituals and personnel, mostlikely he was a Levite from Jerusalem.Literary History. For the last two centuries of

biblical scholarship, a well-established and widelyaccepted position maintained that the books ofSamuel–Kings were composed some time beforethe composition of the book of Chronicles. More-over, the major source (Vorlage) of the Chroniclerwas the text of Samuel–Kings as it is currently pre-served, and therefore there are some identical orvery close parallel texts between the former andthe latter. In many other cases, there are differencesbetween the parallel texts reflecting different view-points. Furthermore, the historical credibility of thesetexts in Chronicles (as well as at least some of theunparalleled texts that appear only in Chronicles—the “additions” or Sondergut/Zusätze) is generallydoubtful. This approach, suggesting that Chronicleswas an unreliable refashioning of Samuel–Kings,was already formulated by W. M. L. de Wette, ree-valuated and improved by C. P. W. Gramberg andK. H. Graf, and reached its peak with J. Wellhausen.Ever since, it has been widely accepted by historiansand biblical scholars, and remains the dominanthypothesis of the vast majority of scholars untilthe present (Kalimi 2005b, pp. 4–5). The advocatesof this approach assume that in principle the ver-sion of the books of Samuel–Kings to which the

1 AND 2 CHRONICLES 121

Chronicler had access—his Vorlage—was identicalwith the one available to us, that is, the consonantalportion of the Hebrew/Masoretic Text (MT) ofSamuel–Kings. This assumption is basic to mostolder scholarly research and exegetical literaturerelating to Chronicles. The fragments of Samuel–Kings that were uncovered among the biblicalmanuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid-twentieth century (on the tiny fragment of Chroni-cles that were found in Qumran, see below), did notfundamentally alter this view. Rather they made usaware that the Chronicler used a slightly differenttext than what we have now in the MT version. Inaddition, the comparison of the MT and Qumrantexts of Samuel–Kings shows that besides the factthat the Qumran text preserved original text, it alsocontain much deliberate editing, rewording, andharmonizing of the original Hebrew version. More-over, it also shows that the MT of Samuel-Kingsitself has sometimes been deliberately changed.In order to rehabilitate the historical credibility

of Chronicles and make it equal to Samuel–Kings,which were widely respected for their generalreliability, some scholars of the nineteenth century(such as Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Bertheau, Dillmann,Havenick, and Keil 1878) developed the idea of a“third” common source (gemeinschaftliche Quelle).According to these scholars, an earlier and indepen-dent source that had first served the authors ofSamuel–Kings, later on also served the Chronicler.This, rather than the Chronicler’s having borrowedfrom Samuel–Kings, would explain the existenceof the parallel texts. The differences between them,these scholars explain, reflect divergent emphasesand usages employed by the authors of Samuel–Kings, on the one hand, and by the Chronicler, onthe other, in editing the earlier and detailed “third”common source to which they both had access.This hypothesis was largely rejected and accordinglyneglected; it was seen as part of the conservative-orthodox school of nineteenth-century biblical study(Kalimi 2005b, pp. 2–6).This viewwas revived by A. G. Auld, who claims that

Samuel–Kings should not be regarded as older thanChronicles: “The Chronicler and the Deuteronomist

both breathed the same post-exilic air” (Auld 1994,p. 163). Auld asserts that the Chronicler did notuse Samuel–Kings as his Vorlage, but shared withthe authors of Samuel–Kings a primary common—“third”—source that recounted the history of Judah,which each author expanded in his own way. Thistheory has been accepted by some scholars. R. F.Person, for example, argues that “the Deuteronomis-tic History and the book of Chronicles are Persian-period historiographies produced by two competingscribal guilds, the Deuteronomistic school and theChronistic school, but that these historiographies arenevertheless based on the same broader tradition,including a common exilic source” (Person 2010,p. 163). Nevertheless, nearly all scholars continue tohold that the composition of Samuel–Kings tookplace much earlier than the composition of Chroni-cles, and that the vast majority of the parallel texts inChronicles were based on the earlier historical workof the Deuteronomistic Historian(s).Careful philological examination of biblical and

nonbiblical texts shows clear differences betweenpreexilic (early/classical) biblical Hebrew, and post-exilic (late) biblical Hebrew in vocabulary, syntax,and orthography. The language of Samuel–Kingsis early biblical Hebrew, while the language ofChronicles is late biblical Hebrew, containing sub-stantial Aramaisms and Persian loanwords. Alterna-tives, such as the assertion of E. A. Knauf (1990) thatbiblical Hebrew is an artificial language which wasinvented in the Persian period, and the hypothesis ofsome other scholars that Jewish scribes of the Persianperiod used two different sorts of Hebrew language atthe same time, are both to be rejected.Chronicles does contain anachronisms from the

Persian period (e.g., 1 Chr 29:7 mentions the Persiangold coin daric in a description of David’s time).Unlike Samuel–Kings, it also mentions the nameof the Persian king (e.g., Cyrus the Great in 2 Chr36:22–23), and has a genealogical list that extendsuntil the mid-Persian age (e.g., 1 Chr 3:19–24; seebelow). Moreover, that the Chronicler used Samuel–Kings is also evident because textual errors andirrelevant expressions in the books of Samuel–Kingsreappear in the parallel texts in Chronicles (Curtis

122 1 AND 2 CHRONICLES

andMadsen, 1910, p. 19). Finally, the Chronicler oftenalludes to narratives in Samuel–Kings, and it is oftenimpossible to understand his allusions without firstbeing familiar with those narratives (1 Chr 10:13–14;15:29; 29:27; 2 Chr 10:15; Kalimi 2005b, pp. 194–214,2011; McKenzie, pp. 82–85).The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–

Nehemiah. No ancient Jewish or Christian sourceconsiders Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah as onecomposition. Some scholars, however, have assumedthat they were originally a single book whose authorwished to describe in a comprehensive historicalwork the history of Israel from the earliest timesto the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. This was theview of some medieval Jewish commentators, suchas Nachmanides (1194–1270) in his commentary onExodus 1:1; and Gersonides (1288–1344), in his com-mentary on 2 Chronicles 36:22 states that becauseof their similar language Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah had the same author. Don Isaac Abarbanel(1437–1508/9), in the introduction to his commentaryon Samuel, and in his second introduction to Kings,

agreed, “since the verses that conclude Chronicles[2 Chr 36:22–23] . . . are the same verses that openthe book of Ezra [Ezra 1:1–3a]” (Abarbanel, p. 165).A modern scholarly foundation for this opinionwas provided by L. Zunz in 1832. Two years laterF. C. Movers reached a similar conclusion, andfor many decades it was almost axiomatic in mostintroductory works, commentaries, and scholarlystudies on Chronicles. Some (e.g., Ackroyd 1991; Gun-neweg 1985; Haran 1985; Noth 1957, Smend 1978;Tuell 2001) speak of a “Chronistic History,” whichwas later separated into two books—Chronicles andEzra–Nehemiah—because of its length. In additionto the reasons given by medieval Jewish commenta-tors, scholars also pointed out that in 1 Esdras,the book of Ezra continues Chronicles without anyinterruption. Moreover, both Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah share such themes as the Temple andits rituals and priesthood, and Jerusalem. Otherscholars (e.g., de Wette 1806; Keil 1878; Willi 1972;Welten 1973) have argued that although Chroniclesand Ezra–Nehemiah are separate works, they werewritten by the same author, a view anticipated byAbarbanel. However, several earlier scholars anda growing majority of contemporary scholars (seeJaphet 1968; Kalimi 2005b, p. 9) consider Chroniclesand Ezra–Nehemiah to be two separate historiogra-phical works, as they appear in the Hebrew andChristian canons and in all ancient translations,that were composed by different authors and atdifferent times. Although no clear linguistic evidencerequires either single or separate authorship for thetwoworks (see Klein 2006, p. 6; Talshir 1988), they dohave significant differences in historiography andstyle, which, along with the repetition caused bycombining them into a single unit, make it unlikelythat they were written by the same author. Hereare some specific examples of differences betweenChronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah:

1. While Ezra–Nehemiah expresses harsh oppo-sition to intermarriage with non-Jews (Ezra9–10; Neh 13:1–3, 23–27), the Chronicler ignoresthe issue. For example, he mentions withoutcomment the Canaanite wife of Judah—the

Persian Daric. Chronicles contains several anachronismsfrom the Persian period including mention of darics at1 Chronicles 29:7. This daric depicts Darius I (r. 522–486B.C.E.) as a royal archer. Photograph by Zev Radovan. WWW.BIBLELANDPICTURES.COM

1 AND 2 CHRONICLES 123

eponymous ancestor of the core tribe of thesouthern kingdom of Judah and its successor,the province of Yehud, during the Chronicler’sown time—(1 Chr 2:3), and David’s aunt,Abigail, who married Jether, the Ishmaelite(1 Chr 2:17). The expert who worked in gold andsilver and other materials for Solomon was “sonof a woman of the daughters of Dan, and hisfather was a man of Tyre” (2 Chr 2:13–14 [Heb.12–13]; cf. 1 Kgs 7:13–14). King Solomon marriedPharaoh’s daughter (2 Chr 8:11 // 1 Kgs 9:24),and the mother of his son, King Rehoboam, wasNaamah, an Ammonite (2 Chr 12:13 // 1 Kgs 14:21).See also 2 Chronicles 24:26 (cf. 2 Kgs 12:21[22]).(See further Knoppers 2001.)

2. The Chronicler omits the account of Solomon’stransgressions in 1 Kings 11:1–13. In contrast, Nehe-miah 13:26 talks about King Solomon’s sins inmarrying foreign women, who made “even himto sin.”

3. Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2 and Nehemiah 12:1 state thatZerubbabel was the son of Shealtiel, the oldestson of King Jehoiachin of Judah, but according to1 Chronicles 3:19 Zerubbabel was son of Pedaiah,the third son of Jehoiachin (called Jeconiah).

4. In passages in Chronicles without parallelsin other books of the Bible there are severaldescriptions of God’s direct intervention inhuman action; this is entirely lacking in Ezra–Nehemiah.

5. As noted by Braun, Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah vary in “the concept and terms asso-ciated with the doctrine of retribution, in theirattitude towards the surrounding inhabitantsof the land, and at a minimum in its greateremphasis upon Davidic monarchy” (Braun 1979,p. 63).

For these and other reasons, the theory of a com-mon authorship for Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah isimplausible, and they must be considered differentwritings by different authors in different times.The similarity between the works results from

their having been composed in adjacent periodsby authors who shared common religious, cultural,

social, political, geographical, and linguistic back-grounds. According to the most likely chronology,both Ezra andNehemiahwere operating (together orseparately) through the reign of Artaxerxes I, king ofPersia (464–424 B.C.E.). According to Nehemiah 5:14and 13:6, Nehemiah wrote his memoirs some timeafter the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes’ reign (433/432 B.C.E.). The genealogical list appearing in Nehe-miah 12:10–11 ends with Jaddua, son of Jonathan,who (according to the Elephantine texts) served ashigh priest in 407 B.C.E. Thus, the memoirs of Nehe-miah were probably written near the end of the fifthcentury, and the memoirs of Ezra at about the sametime. The Chronicler, who apparently composed hisbook between 400–375 B.C.E. (see below), was awareof Ezra and Nehemiah’s activity and made use oftheir memoirs ( e.g., the list of residents of Jerusalemappearing in 1Chr 9:2–17was taken fromNeh 11:3–19,and 2 Chr 36:22–23 was taken from Ezra 1:1–3a).The Original Extent of Chronicles. Scholars dis-

agree regarding the unity of Chronicles: is the book asingle composition to be attributed to one author,or has the Chronicler’s original work been supple-mented by later authors and redactors? Scholarswho hold the latter view differ about the identityand scope of these secondary additions. This ques-tion arises largely regarding the various lists in1 Chronicles 1–9; 12:1–22 [23]; parts of chapters15–16; and chapters 23–27. Some view these chap-ters as an integral part of the Chronicler’s originalwork; others consider them (entirely or partially) asa late addition resulting from the work of a lateredactor (“second Chronicler”) or a number of re-dactors. Between these extremes, another approachviews the main parts of the lists as late additions bythe hands of various redactors, although the Chroni-cler was the source for some of the lists (Kalimi2005a, pp. 43–45; 2005b, pp. 406–407). Nonetheless,the existence of similar literary and historiographi-cal features in the texts with parallels elsewhere inthe Bible as well as in those without such parallels(including the genealogical and geographical lists),may testify to the compositional unity of Chronicles.Thus, the extent to which Chronicles is a literaryunit continues to be debated.

124 1 AND 2 CHRONICLES

Date of Composition and Historical Context.Though Chronicles principally deals with the historyof the First Temple period, there is no doubt thatit was composed in the Second Temple period.The language of the book (postexilic/late biblicalHebrew) and its ideology reflect this period.Because the Chronicler does not mention when hecomposed his book, or any specific event fromhis own time, the work must be dated on indirectinner evidence. Directly significant to the datingof Chronicles is the question of the relationshipbetween Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah on theone hand, and the question of the original extentof the book itself on the other. Those scholars whoaccept Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah (completely orpartially) as a single literary unit composed byone author find indications for dating the composi-tion in Ezra–Nehemiah, which mentions both KingArtaxerxes (ruled 464–424) and Darius II (424–404). But scholars who think Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiahwere two separate literary units, composedby different authors and in different times, cannotdraw upon those texts. One also finds scholars whoconsider the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1–9 (partiallyor completely) as additions from one or more latereditors, and thus cannot use evidence regarding thedate of the book from these chapters. Those whothink of these chapters as an integral part of Chroni-cles will take them into consideration. The diversity ofscholars’ opinions concerning the date of the compo-sition of Chronicles reflects, therefore, the diversity oftheir starting-points. Accordingly, there is even dis-pute concerning a general period of composition—the Persian period (539–332 B.C.E.) or Hellenistic period(332–164 B.C.E.).Chronicles, on the one hand, contains no Greek

words nor does it reflect any feature of Hellenisticthought, culture, or history. There is also no indica-tion of anachronism from the Hellenistic periodin the book. On the other hand, the language of thebook is late biblical Hebrew, influenced by Aramaic,and contains Persian words (e.g., nadan [“sheath,”1Chr 21:27]; parbar [“colonnade,” 1Chr 26:18]; ganzak[“treasury,” 1 Chr 28:11; cf. Esth 3:9; 4:7]; adarkonim[= Persian gold coin darics, 1 Chr 29:7]). Chronicles

cites not just from Ezra–Nehemiah, but also fromFirst Zechariah and Malachi, both of which aredated no earlier than the late sixth century B.C.E.(cf. 2 Chr 15:5 with Zech 8:10; 2 Chr 16:9 with Zech4:10; 2 Chr 30:9 with Mal 1:9). Furthermore, personsand events from the Persian epoch are mentionedin the book; in addition to those mentioned above,the list of Jerusalem’s residents comes from thetime of Nehemiah (1 Chr 9:2–17 // Neh 11:3–19). Ingeneral, it is reasonable to presume that the bookwas composed sometime in the Persian era (539–332B.C.E.), before the invasion of Alexander the Great(332 B.C.E.).The only indication of a terminus a quo is found in

1 Chronicles 3:19–24, which lists six generationsafter Zerubbabel, who was active in the late sixthcentury B.C.E. Allowing approximately twenty yearsper generation, this means that Chronicles cannothave been written before the late fifth or early fourthcentury B.C.E., or the years 382–376, with one gen-eration lasting for twenty-three to twenty-fouryears. Give or take a few variations in ages, onecan conclude that Chronicles was composed some-time in the late fifth century or in the first quarter ofthe fourth century B.C.E., and probably not long afterthat, since the genealogy stops at the sixth genera-tion. The last person mentioned is Anani, who maybe the same person mentioned in the Elephantinepapyri (407 B.C.E.) as a resident of Jerusalem, con-firming this dating. (Other proposed identificationsof some of those named in the genealogy with per-sons occurring in other nonbiblical sources are lesslikely; Kalimi 2005a, pp. 41–65).Structure and Content. Chronicles is built from

two main kinds of texts: lists and narratives. Almosthalf of the book has parallel texts in the Torah,Former Prophets (particularly Samuel–Kings), Psalms,Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, and, occasionally, other biblicalbooks. The rest consists of material unique to Chroni-cles, that is, with no parallels in any biblical or non-biblical sources.Generally speaking, the book of Chronicles

recounts the history of Israel from the earliesttimes until the Babylonian destruction of the FirstTemple, Jerusalem, and the kingdom of Judah in

1 AND 2 CHRONICLES 125

586 B.C.E. It ends with Cyrus’s decree in 538 B.C.E. thatallowed Jews exiled to Babylonia to return to theirhomeland, and rebuild their Temple and Jerusalem.Within this chronological framework, the book hasa narrower focus: the large tribe of Judah, the historyof David, Solomon, and the Davidic dynasty whichruled the southern kingdom of Judah, and especiallyJerusalem, the Temple, and its rituals and personnel.The book is structured in three major sections, eachwith its own subdivisions:(1) Genealogical and Geographical Introduction

(1 Chr 1–9)From Adam to Israel (1 Chr 1)The Israelite Tribes (1 Chr 2:1—9:1 [2:1a+9:1ainclusio])

The Southern TribesJudah (2:3—4:23)Simeon (4:24–43)

The Eastern (Transjordanian) TribesReuben (5:1–10)Gad (5:11–17)Struggles with Enemies (5:18–26)

Tribe of LeviLevitical Families (6:1–53 [Heb.: 5:27—6:38])Levitical Cities (6:54–81 [6:39–66])

The Northern and Central TribesIssachar (7:1–5)Benjamin (7:6–12)Naphtali (7:13)Manasseh (7:14–19)Ephraim (7:20–29)Asher (7:30–40)Benjamin (8:1–40)

Inhabitants of Jerusalem and the House of Saul(1 Chr 9:2–44)

(2) The United Kingdom (1 Chr 10—2 Chr 9)Reign of Saul (1 Chr 10)Reign of David (1 Chr 11–29)Reign of Solomon (2 Chr 1–9)

(3) The Kingdom of Judah (2 Chr 10–36)Rehoboam (2 Chr 10–12)Abijah (2 Chr 13:1—14:1 [2 Chr 13])Asa (2 Chr 14:2–16 [2 Chr 14–16])Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 17—21:1)

Jehoram (2 Chr 21:2–20)Ahaziah (2 Chr 22:1–9)Joash (2 Chr 22:10—24:27)Amaziah (2 Chr 25)Uzziah (2 Chr 26)Jotham (2 Chr 27)Ahaz (2 Chr 28)Hezekiah (2 Chr 29–32)Manasseh (2 Chr 33:1–20)Amon (2 Chr 33:21–25)Josiah (2 Chr 34:1—36:1)Jehoahaz (2 Chr 36:2–4)Jehoiakim (2 Chr 36:5–8)Jehoiachin (2 Chr 36:9–10)Zedekiah (2 Chr 36:11–21)Appendix: Cyrus’s Decree (2 Chr 36:22–23)Literary Genre and Interpretation. Definition of

the literary genre of Chronicles affects the under-standing of the book, its content, its aim, and relia-bility as a source for the history of Israel mainly inthe monarchic era, and for the development ofJudaism in the Second Temple period. Some scho-lars (e.g., Wellhausen) consider the Chronicler as amidrashist, seeing Chronicles as an imaginative ex-pansion of Samuel and Kings. While there are somemidrashic elements in the book, all in all this con-clusion is inaccurate. Others (e.g., Willi 1972; Becker1986, 1988) view the Chronicler as an exegete whointerpreted Samuel–Kings, which he treated as ifthey were canonical; however, although there aresome interpretive elements in Chronicles, this isnot a feature of the entire book. Other scholars(e.g., Ackroyd 1991; W. Johnstone 1997) have viewedthe Chronicler as a theologian. But while there aretheological notions in Chronicles, as a whole it can-not be defined as a theological work. A close exam-ination of Chronicles shows that the Chronicler’sprimary intent was to relate events of the past, andhe acts mainly as a creative historian. The book asa whole is historiography, specifically, a “sacred-didactic” historical writing; that is, its “philosophyof history” is mainly theological and its purposedidactic in nature. The presence of exaggeratednumbers, fictive speeches, prayers, letters, theologi-cal features, inner-interpretations, and midrashic

126 1 AND 2 CHRONICLES

elements are not inconsistent with the identifica-tion of Chronicles as historical writing. In fact, theseelements are also present in earlier biblical histor-ical writing, in ancient Near Eastern documents, andin Greek, Hellenistic, and Roman historiography. Asa historian, the Chronicler selected from and eval-uated texts and themes related to his own agendaand audience, with his own logic and presupposi-tions, expressing his own beliefs and opinions alongthe way. The evaluation took place with both spe-cific literary concerns and religious standards. Hedid not intend to describe past events, institutions,and personalities as they really happened. Rather,he meant to review them within the specific settingof his own time, place, social, religious, cultural,and political circumstances. This does not meanthat the modern historian must accept the writingsand methods of the Chronicler and uncriticallycredit them with historical credibility. While thereis some historicity in events and details recountedin the book, the book must be carefully evaluatedin order to extract potentially reliable historicaldata for the pre- and postexilic periods. To be sure,Chronicles can also be looked at in other ways,including textual, linguistic, theological, exegetical,and comparative, and recently, particular attentionhas been given to the reception history, impacthistory, and history of interpretation of Chronicles.Is Chronicles Intended to Replace Samuel–Kings?

The Chronicler alludes to events or themes men-tioned in detail in the Torah and Former Prophets(or to a narrative elsewhere in his own work)by repeating a linguistic unit that already appearedin the episode alluded to. He seems to have assumedthat the potential audience would be familiar withevents that appeared in earlier books and that anallusion would be enough to nudge their memories.Moreover, a reader would be unable to understandmany items in Chronicles without prior familiarityof the contents of Samuel–Kings. It seems mostprobable, therefore, that the Chronicler principallyattempted to build his work on the accounts inthe earlier works, rather than to undermine themor replace them, as some researchers have asserted.In fact, literary allusions are found all over Chronicles,

both in texts that have parallels in earlier biblicalbooks and in non-parallel texts that appear merelyin Chronicles, and in narrative as well as in state-ments embedded in genealogical lists (see Kalimi2005b, pp. 194–214).The Chronicler’s Agenda and His Essential

Tendency. Most likely, then, the Chronicler wishedto provide a comprehensive work, alongside thebooks of Samuel–Kings, which describes the historyof the tribe of Judah and the Davidic dynasty, whilepaying particular attention to Jerusalem, the Jerusa-lem Temple, and its services and servers. As a his-torian who was conditioned by his time, place, andhistorical setting, he selected from the earlier bookstexts and themes that related to his audience, andhad actual functions in his sociohistorical context:he attempted to enhance for his own communityin the Persian province of Yehud the holiness andsuperiority of the Temple, Jerusalem, and its leaders—the Davidic descendant Anani (1 Chr 3:24), the highpriest (e.g., 2 Chr 24:6, 11), and particularly theLevites. He evaluated the earlier historical textsand themes in Samuel–Kings from his own religiousnorms (e.g., celebration of the eighth day of assemblyafter Sukkot [Azeret]; 2 Chr 7:8–10) and theologicalviewpoint (e.g., immediate reward and punishment)in the Second Temple period. In order to ease theminds of the readers of Torah and Samuel–Kings,the Chronicler harmonized contradictory texts inthese books (e.g., 2 Chr 35:13). He judged the histor-ical personalities of the monarchic age and theiracts as though the Deuteronomistic and the PriestlyCodes had existed in those past times as they did inhis own (e.g., 1 Chr 13:7; 14:12; 18:17). He guided hisaudience by providing “historical” descriptions ofnational personalities who carefully observed ordid not observe the Torah’s commandments (e.g.,1 Chr 14:12; 2 Chr 1:3, 5). As such, these personalitiesset an example for the Chronicler’s contemporariesand for future audiences as well. The Chroniclermade use of them to teach his society how to behaveand how not to behave, so that his small communitysurrounded by problematic neighbors could survive.He took opportunities to dispute with the northernneighbors in Samaria (e.g., 2 Chr 3:1; 13), as well as

1 AND 2 CHRONICLES 127

addressed his message to Jews in Diaspora to immi-grate to Jerusalem (e.g., 2 Chr 36:22–23). At the sametime, in order to make his book more persuasive andreadable, the Chronicler updated the literary forms,the language, and the style of the earlier sources. Hecompleted some texts, omitted difficult ones andsecondary information, altered some of their infor-mative contents, shaped their religious meanings,and explained why events happened as they did.History of Interpretation. Signs of interpretation

of Chronicles appear in the Hebrew Bible itself (Qoh6:2; Dan 1:1–2; 9:2). Apart from a phrase in Acts 26:17,possibly taken from 1 Chronicles 16:35a, there is nodirect quotation of the book in the New Testament.Nonetheless, Chronicles was used in several ways:Luke 11:50–51 and Matthew 23:35 refer to the murderof Zechariah that appears only in 2 Chronicles24:20–22; by contrasting Zechariah’s cry for divinevengeance at his death with the pleas for divineforgiveness by Jesus and Stephen (Luke 23:34; Acts7:59–60); by imitating the story of the captives of theJudahites (2 Chr 28:8–15) in the story of the GoodSamaritan (Luke 10:25–37); and by referring to someChronicles’ speech and genealogies.Josephus either ignores the contradictions be-

tween the parallel texts of Chronicles and Samuel–Kings, while preferring the latter because of its olderage, or harmonizes them. Sometimes he combinesa story from Samuel–Kings with the parallel textin Chronicles, while in other cases he prefers theChronicler’s telling over that in Samuel or Kings.Chronicles was not a subject of pesher (interpre-

tation) as were Psalms and several propheticalbooks. However, the numerous differences betweenChronicles and the earlier biblical books were ap-parent to the rabbis. These dissimilarities providedopportunities for midrashic exposition, althoughChronicles does not have a specific midrashic com-mentary dedicated to it. Usually the rabbis attemptto harmonize the contradictory parallel texts. Forexample, they struggled to reconcile the intermar-riages mentioned in Chronicles with the oppositionto intermarriage stated in Ezra–Nehemiah, sayingthat the intermarriages were acceptable to Ezra andNehemiah (to whom they ascribed the composition

of the book) under certain conditions. They inter-preted the genealogical lists allegorically or typolo-gically in order to bestow them with extra meaning;names in them were given into folk etymologiesbased on wordplay, far removed from the simplemeaning of the texts or their historical, ethnological,or geographical background. The relatively smallnumber of midrashim on Chronicles in talmudicliterature may reflect that study of the book waslimited. The book of Genealogies mentioned in rab-binic literature was a commentary on biblical gen-ealogies in general, including those that appearin Chronicles. The late comments about midrashicbooks on Ezra and Chronicles and “Sefer haAggadahof Chronicles” refer to the midrashim on Chroniclesin the anthology of Rabbi Shimeon Kara, YalqutShimeoni (ca. 1200–1300 C.E.). The latter is mainlya collection of scattered midrashic comments onChronicles, especially the genealogies, in the talmudicliterature.In contrast to some other late biblical books,

Chronicles has a complete Targum. Although tradi-tionally Targum Chronicles is attributed to RabJoseph (early fourth century C.E.), it is highly depen-dent on earlier Targumim (Targum Onqelos, andPseudo-Jonathan on the Torah, and on Targum Jo-nathan on the Prophets) and was not finalized untilthe eighth century. Targum Chronicleswas unknowneven to leading medieval Jewish scholars, includingcommentators on Chronicles such as Pseudo-Rashiand Radak, and it was not printed in the first edi-tions of the Mikraot Gedolot. This Targum harmo-nizes Samuel–Kings and the Torah.The neglected status of Chronicles was men-

tioned by several medieval Jewish scholars, manyof whom also studied and interpreted it. For thefirst time, meticulous commentaries in both He-brew and Arabic were written on the book, in Eur-opean as well as Mediterranean countries.Azariah de’Rossi (ca. 1511–1577) and Uriel da

Costa (1583/84–1640) were the first to take acritical approach to some issues in Chronicles.Nevertheless, they did not break with fundamentalconcepts with regard to the book. In contrast,Joseph Solomon Delmedigo (1591–1655) opposed

128 1 AND 2 CHRONICLES

the credibility of Chronicles as a source for thehistory of monarchic Israel. Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) questioned the very canonicity of the bookand would have preferred to canonize some pseu-depigraphical books instead. He also challengedthe rabbinic view on the unity and composition ofChronicles. The assertions of Delmedigo and Spi-noza with regard to Chronicles may be consideredthe beginning of the critical era in the study ofChronicles. These influential thinkers were radicalbiblical scholars in their own times and forerunnersof modern Chronicles scholarship, proceeding un-chained from traditional opinions and biases. None-theless, their comments did not encourage studyof Chronicles, and critical investigation of the bookwaned until the fresh approach of W. M. L. de Wette(1806) in general, and of L. Zunz (1832) in particular.Since de Wette, and especially J. Wellhausen (1878),for the most part the study of Chronicles was con-nected with the Documentary Hypothesis of thePentateuch. However, in recent decades the studyof the book has had a scholarly renaissance, promptedby research on the less studied parts of the HebrewBible and the less investigated periods in Israelitehistory; the Persian period in particular has beena focus of scholarly and archaeological interest. Inaddition, the book of Chronicles is the only biblicalbook where we have detailed knowledge of most ofits sources. The book has moved from the peripheryto the center of biblical scholarship, and receivesmuch deserved scholarly attention.Reception History. Biblical scholars, both ancient

and modern, have often referred to the underappre-ciated and neglected situation of Chronicles amongthe scriptures. This statement is true when the study,interpretation, treatment, and usage of Chroniclesare compared with those of other biblical books.Nonetheless, over the generations, Chronicles wasincluded in Jewish religious and intellectual life andhad a place in Jewish thought and theology; exegesis;poetry; mystical, liturgical, ritual, and artistic activ-ities; and historical writings. As mentioned above,Chronicles was already used in the Hebrew Bible,as well as in the New Testament. It was probablyalso used as a literary model for Pseudo-Philo’s Liber

Antiquitatum Biblicarum, and by other authors ofJewish works that were later classified as “apocrypha”and “pseudepigrapha.” The translation of Chroniclesinto Greek received little priority, and took place laterthan that of Samuel–Kings. Although the LXX wasproduced by Jews for Jews, it was abandoned byJudaism after its adoption by Christianity. Thus themiscalculation with regard to Greek Chronicles, asevident in its title (see above), was retained in theChristian world and caused further underestimationof the book in Christianity.In contrast to Philo of Alexandria, who did not

use Chronicles in his biblical-philosophical writings,the Hellenistic Jewish historians used it extensively.For example, Eupolemus generally depends onSamuel–Kings and Chronicles. In fact, many timeshe prefers Chronicles to Samuel–Kings; becauseit was written against the background of the com-pleted Torah, it was better suited to Eupolemus’sreligious concepts. It also contained additional ma-terial on Judah, which was the major topic of hiswork as of the Chronicler’s. In his Jewish Antiquities,Josephus gives both histories—the Deuteronomisticand the Chronistic—their due, with maximal use ofeach one’s unique materials. Usually he takes Kings’more extensive, Israel-oriented sequence as a basisand integrates the Chronicler’smaterials on Judah intoit. Thus he meticulously uses the nonparallel texts assupplementary data for the material in the Deuterono-mistic History. His approach toward Chronicles is incontinuity with the attitudes of the LXX’s translator(s)and some authors of pseudepigrapha.Chronicles is represented among about eight

hundred biblical manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrollsby a single tiny fragment (4QChr = 4Q118; ca. 50–25B.C.E.), which may be a slightly different version of2 Chronicles 28:27; 29:1–3. The fragment was severelydamaged and, out of the four extant verses, onlyseveral complete words survive intact. It is difficultto know if the fragment is part of the Chroniclesmanuscript or only a quotation of Chronicles ina manuscript that was discussing another issue.Though some Qumran writers referred to Chronicles(e.g., 4Q225, 4Q252, 4QapPsb = 4Q381, 4Q504 IV 2–3,4Q522, 1QS), it was studied and copiedmuch less than

1 AND 2 CHRONICLES 129

other books in Qumran, which may be an indicationof its lesser status.Still, the presence of fragments of Targum Chroni-

cles, Pseudo-Rashi’s commentary on Chronicles,the commentary of Judah Ibn Bal’am, and Jonah IbnJana’s commentary in the Cairo Genizah, shows thatChronicles was studied and used for educationalpurposes in Cairo’s medieval Jewish community.In art, the artist of the fresco “Samuel Anointing

David” in the synagogue of Dura-Europos (upperwest bank of the Euphrates, at the northeast edgeof the Syrian Desert; 244–245 C.E.) preferred theChronicler’s view with regard to the sum of David’sbrothers—six brothers, over the traditions preservedin Samuel—three/seven brothers (Chronicles’ prefer-ence is obvious also in somemedieval Christian illus-trators). The ancient synagogue of En-gedi has animpressive mosaic inscription (fifth to early seventhcentury C.E.) with a genealogical list of the world’sthirteen ancestors from Adam to Noah and his sons,taken from 1 Chronicles 1:1–4. The inscription alsocontains several biblical expressions in Aramaic. Twoof them are probably translations of 2 Chronicles16:9b and 1 Chronicles 16:36b.

In general, then, Chronicles was used in a rangeof Jewish communities in various places and times.The opposite can be said of some Christian com-munities, which excluded this book from theirreligious agenda entirely. Thus, in the sixteenthcentury, Cranmer was anxious to ensure that thewhole Bible was used in the Anglican offices ofMorning and Evening Prayer, except the book ofChronicles (and the book of Revelation from theNew Testament). Chronicles was also excludedfrom the Stuttgarter Familenbibel, because it wasconsidered a duplicate of stories that were alreadytold in Samuel–Kings.

[See also Ezra and Nehemiah; 1 and 2 Kings; and1 and 2 Samuel.]

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Abarbanel, I. Commentary on the Former Prophets.Jerusalem: Torah ve-da’at, 1955. (Hebrew).

Ackroyd, Peter R. The Chronicler in His Age. Journal forthe Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series101. Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic, 1991.

Albright, William F. “The Date and Personality of theChronicler.” Journal of Biblical Literature 40 (1921):104–124.

Samuel Anointing David (1 Sam 16:1–13). Fresco in the Dura Europos synagogue, Syria,third century C.E. The artist preferred the Chronicler’s view regarding the number of David’sbrothers—six rather than the seven mentioned in Samuel. # ZEV RADOVAN/THE BRIDGEMAN

ART LIBRARY INTERNATIONAL

130 1 AND 2 CHRONICLES

Auld, A. Graeme. Kings without Privilege: David andMoses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings. Edinburgh:T & T Clark, 1994.

Becker, Joachim. 1 Chronik. Die Neue Echter Bibel: AltesTestament 18. Würzburg, Germany: Echter, 1986.

Becker, Joachim. 2 Chronik. Die Neue Echter Bibel: AltesTestament 20. Würzburg, Germany: Echter, 1988.

Braun, Roddy L. “Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah: Theol-ogy and Literary History.” In Studies in the HistoricalBooks of the Old Testament, edited by J. A. Emerton,pp. 52–64. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 30.Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1979.

Braun, Roddy L. 1 Chronicles. Word Biblical Commen-tary 14. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1986.

Curtis, Edward L., and Albert A. Madsen. A Criticaland Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles.International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & TClark, 1910.

De Wette, Wilhelm M. L. Beiträge zur Einleitung in dasAlte Testament. Halle: Schimmelpfennig, 1806. Seepart 1, pp. 1–132.

Dillard, Raymond B. 2 Chronicles. Word Biblical Com-mentary 15. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987.

Dirksen, Peter B. 1 Chronicles. Translated by Antony P.Runia. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament.Leuven, Belgium, and Dudley, Mass.: Peeters, 2005.

Driver, Samuel R. An Introduction to the Literature ofthe Old Testament. 9th ed. International TheologicalLibrary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913.

Graham, Matthew P. The Utilization of 1 and 2 Chroniclesin the Reconstruction of Israelite History in the Nine-teenth Century. Society of Biblical Literature Disserta-tion Series 116. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990.

Graham, Matthew P., Kenneth G. Hoglund, and StevenL. McKenzie, eds. The Chronicler as Historian. Journalfor the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Ser-ies 238. Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic, 1997.

Graham, Matthew P., and Steven L. McKenzie, eds. TheChronicler as Author. Journal for the Study of the OldTestament: Supplement Series 263. Sheffield, U.K.:Sheffield Academic, 1999.

Graham, Matthew P., Steven L. McKenzie, and GaryN. Knoppers, eds. The Chronicler as Theologian. Jour-nal for the Study of the Old Testament: SupplementSeries 371. London and New York: T & T Clark Inter-national, 2003.

Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. Esra. Kommentar zum AltenTestament 19,1. Gütersloh, Germany: Gütersloher Ver-lagshaus Mohn, 1985.

Haran, Menachem. “Catch-Lines in Ancient Palaeogra-phy and in the Biblical Canon.” Eretz-Israel 18 (Nah-man Avigad Volume; 1985): 124–129.

Hurvitz, Avi. “The Historical Quest for ‘Ancient Israel’and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible:Some Methodological Observations.” Vetus Testamen-tum 47 (1997): 301–315.

Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary.OldTestamentLibrary. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993.

Japhet, Sara. “The Supposed Common Authorship ofChronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew.”Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968): 332–373.

Johnstone, William. 1 and 2 Chronicles. Journal for theStudy of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 253,254. Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic, 1997.

Kalimi, Isaac. An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies inthe Chronicler, His Time, Place, and Writing. StudiaSemitica Neerlandica 46. Assen, Netherlands: RoyalVan Gorcum, 2005a.

Kalimi, Isaac. The Books of Chronicles: A Classified Bibliogra-phy. Simor Bible Bibliographies 1. Jerusalem: Simor, 1990.

Kalimi, Isaac. Early Jewish Exegesis and Theological Con-troversy: Studies in Scriptures in the Shadow of Internaland External Controversies. Jewish and Christian Heri-tage 2. Assen, Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum, 2002.See pp. 9–58.

Kalimi, Isaac. “Kings with Privilege: The Core Source ofthe Chronistic History.” 2011 (forthcoming).

Kalimi, Isaac. “Placing the Chronicler in His Own His-torical Context: A Closer Examination.” Journal ofNear Eastern Studies 68 (2009): 179–192.

Kalimi, Isaac. The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite Historyin Chronicles. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005b.

Kalimi, Isaac. The Retelling of Chronicles in Jewish Tradi-tion and Literature: A Historical Journey.Winona Lake,Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

Keil, C. Friedrich. The Books of the Chronicles. BiblicalCommentary on the Old Testament 35. Edinburgh:T & T Clark, 1878.

Klein, Ralph W. 1 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia.Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006.

Knauf E. Axel. “War ‘Biblisch-Hebräisch’ eine Sprache?”Zeitschrift für Althebräistik 3 (1990): 11–23.

Knoppers, Gary N. “Intermarriage, Social Complexity,and Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of Judah.” Jour-nal of Biblical Literature 120 (2001): 15–30.

Knoppers, Gary N. I Chronicles 1–9. I Chronicles 10–29.A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.Anchor Bible 12; 12A. New York, London, and Toronto:Doubleday, 2003–2004.

Lassner, J., and S. I. Troen. Jews and Muslims in the ArabWorld: Haunted by Pasts Real and Imagined. Lanham,Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.

McKenzie, Steven L. “The Chronicler as Redactor.” In TheChronicler as Author, edited by Matthew P. Graham

1 AND 2 CHRONICLES 131

and Steven L. McKenzie, pp. 70–90. Sheffield, U.K.:Sheffield Academic, 1999.

Noth, Martin. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. 2d ed.Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1957.

O’Brien, Mark A. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis:A Reassessment. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 92. Fri-burg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag, 1989.

Peltonen, Kai. History Debated: The Historical Reliabilityof Chronicles in Pre-critical and Critical Research.2 vols. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996.

Person, R. F., Jr. The Deuteronomistic History and theBook of Chronicles: Scribal Works in an Oral World.Ancient Israel and Its Literature 6. Atlanta: Society ofBiblical Literature, 2010.

Rudolph, Wilhelm. Chronikbücher. Handbuch zum AltenTestament 21. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 1955.

Smend, Rudolph.Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments.Theo-logische Wissenschaft 1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978.

Talshir, David. “A Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Re-lationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah.”Vetus Testamentum 38 (1988): 165–193.

Tuell, Steven S. First and Second Chronicles. Interpreta-tion. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001.

Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of AncientIsrael. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1973.

Welten, Peter. Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in denChronikbüchern. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zumAlten und Neuen Testament 42. Neukirchen-Vluyn,Germany: Neukirchner Verlag, 1973.

Willi, Thomas. Die Chronik als Auslegung. Forschungenzur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Tes-taments 106. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1972.

Williamson, Hugh G. M. 1 and 2 Chronicles. New CenturyBible Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans;London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1982.

Young, E. J. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Rev. ed.London: Tyndale, 1964.

Zunz, Leopold. “Dibre-Hajamim oder die Bücher derChronik.” In Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Judenhistorisch entwickelt. Ein Beitrag zur Altertumskundeund biblischer Kritik zur Literatur- und Religions-geschichte, pp. 13–36. 2d ed. Frankfurt a.M.: Kauffmann,1892. First published in Berlin: Ascher, 1832.

Isaac Kalimi

CLEMENT, LETTERS OF

Included in the letters of Clement (Klementos, ProsKorinthious A, Pros Korinthious B) are two works,

known as 1 and 2 Clement, from the broader collec-tion of Clementine literature. Though once held ingreat esteem within the early church, and includedwith New Testament texts in the fifth-century CodexAlexandrinus, neither was ultimately accepted intothe Christian canon. Instead, scholars now numberthem among the writings of the so-called “ApostolicFathers” based upon the ancient supposition thatthey were written by the earliest followers of theoriginal apostles. This assumption is widely debatedby scholars today.Authorship and Context. By tradition, each of

these works is attributed to Pope Clement I, one ofthe earliest bishops of the church at Rome. Patristicsources disagree on the chronology of the appoint-ment of Clement as bishop, either listing him as animmediate successor to the apostle Peter, togetherwith Linus and (Ana-)cletus (cf. Tertullian, Praescr.32; Liber Pontificalis 2) in various offices, or as fourthbishop in succession after the tenure of the othertwo (cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 3.3.3; Eusebius, Hist. eccl.3.4.10; Jerome, Vir. ill. 15). Few reliable details areavailable about Clement’s life (cf. Lightfoot 1889–1890), though it is clear that he was one of theleading members of the church in Rome and diedsometime toward the end of the first century.Modern scholars continue to be largely predis-

posed toward crediting Clement with the author-ship of 1 Clement. Typically scholars date this text tothe last decade of the first century (perhaps 96 C.E.),since these were likely to have been the mostproductive years of the bishop’s administration inRome. At the same time, good arguments can bemade for an earlier date in the late 60s or early 70s,based upon the antiquity of themes and images thatappear in the text (Herron 1989; cf. Gregory 2005).For example, 1 Clement relies heavily upon OldTestament heroes as models of Christian leadership,alludes to the practice of sacrifices in the JerusalemTemple (41.2), a structure that was destroyed in70 C.E., claims that presbyters remain in Corinthwho were appointed by the apostles (42.1—43.6),and indicates no knowledge of the Gospels orActs. The work itself gives no indication of Clem-ent’s participation in the actual composition of the

132 1 AND 2 CHRONICLES

DIRECTORY OF CONTRIBUTORS

Reinhard Achenbach

Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät,Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster,Germany

Numbers

James K. Aitken

Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge,United Kingdom

Text Criticism: Apocrypha

Richard S. Ascough

Queen’s School of Religion, Kingston,Ontario

Philippians

Harold W. Attridge

Yale Divinity School

Hebrews

Alan J. Avery-Peck

Department of Religious Studies,College of the Holy Cross

Rabbinic Literature: Introduction

John R. Bartlett

Trinity College, Dublin; Royal Irish Academy

1 Maccabees

Ehud Ben Zvi

University of Alberta

Obadiah

M. Eugene Boring

Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University,Emeritus

1 Peter

Nancy R. Bowen

Earlham School of Religion

Ezekiel

James E. Bowley

Department of Religious Studies, Millsaps College

Bible

Brennan W. Breed

Graduate Division of Religion, Emory University

Job

Linda McKinnish Bridges

Wake Forest University School of Divinity

1 Thessalonians

Ann Graham Brock

Iliff School of Theology

Paul and Thecla, Acts of

Joshua Ezra Burns

Department of Theology, MarquetteUniversity

Rabbinic Literature: New Testament

David B. Capes

School of Theology, Houston BaptistUniversity

1 Corinthians

Greg Carey

Lancaster Theological Seminary

Apocalypses

David M. Carr

Union Theological Seminary in New York

Genesis

479

M. Daniel Carroll R.

Biblical Studies Divison, Denver Seminary

Amos

Stephen B. Chapman

Duke University

Canon: Old Testament

James Hamilton Charlesworth

Department of Biblical Studies, Princeton TheologicalSeminary

Pesharim

Randall D. Chesnutt

Pepperdine University

Wisdom of Solomon

Lisa Cleath

Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures,University of California, Los Angeles

Manasseh, Prayer of

Mordechai Cogan

Department of Jewish History,Hebrew University of Jerusalem

1 and 2 Kings

Stephen L. Cook

Virginia Theological Seminary

HaggaiMalachiZechariah

Stevan Davies

Department of Religious Studies,Misericordia University

Thomas, Gospel of

Marcello Del Verme

Dipartimento di Discipline Storiche,Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”

Didache

Katharine J. Dell

Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, U.K.

Proverbs

David A. deSilva

Ashland Theological Seminary

Pseudepigrapha

Lorenzo DiTommaso

Department of Religion, Concordia University,Montréal

2 EsdrasTestaments

Thomas B. Dozeman

United Theological Seminary

Exodus

Paul B. Duff

Department of Religion, George Washington University

Revelation

J. K. Elliott

The University of Leeds, U.K.

Apocrypha: New Testament

Neil Elliott

United Theological Seminary

Romans

John C. Endres, S.J.

Jesuit School of Theology (in Berkeley),Santa Clara University

Apocrypha: Old Testament

Tamara Cohn Eskenazi

Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion

Ezra and Nehemiah

C. A. Evans

Acadia Divinity College

Canon: Overview

J. Cheryl Exum

Department of Biblical Studies, University ofSheffield, U.K.

Song of Solomon

Benjamin Fiore S.J.

Campion College, University of Regina

1 Timothy2 TimothyTitus

Paul Foster

School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh

Philip, Gospel of

480 DIRECTORY OF CONTRIBUTORS

Stephen Garfinkel

Department of Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages,Jewish Theological Seminary

Ecclesiastes

Stephen A. Geller

The Jewish Theological Seminary

Psalms

Deborah Gera

Classics Department, HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem

Judith

Matthew Goff

Department of Religion, FloridaState University

Baruch1 EnochJeremiah, Letter of

Rémi Gounelle

Faculté de Théologie Protestante, Université deStrasbourg

Pilate, Acts of

Rebecca S. Hancock

Department of Near Eastern Languages andCivilizations, Harvard University

Canon: Hebrew Bible1 and 2 Samuel

C. Davis Hankins

Graduate Division of Religion, Emory University

Job

Angela Kim Harkins

Department of Religious Studies, Fairfield University

Prayers and Hymns

Paul B. Harvey, Jr.

Department of Classics and AncientMediterranean Studies, PennsylvaniaState University

Vulgate and Other Ancient Latin Translations

Christopher B. Hays

Fuller Theological Seminary

Isaiah

Pamela E. Hedrick

Department of Religion and Philosophy,High Point University

John, Gospel According to

Suzanne Watts Henderson

Department of Philosophy and Religion,Queens University of Charlotte

Mark, Gospel According to

Jan Willem van Henten

Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam

2 Maccabees

John R. Huddlestun

Department of Religious Studies, College of Charleston,South Carolina

Nahum

Clayton N. Jefford

Saint Meinrad Seminary and School of Theology

Clement, Letters of

Isaac Kalimi

The Oriental Institute, The University of Chicago

1 and 2 Chronicles

John S. Kloppenborg

Department for the Study of Religion,University of Toronto

Gospels

Ross S. Kraemer

Department of Religious Studies and Program in JudaicStudies, Brown University

Joseph and Aseneth

Larry J. Kreitzer

Regent’s Park College, University of Oxford

Philemon

Nancy C. Lee

Department of Religious Studies, Elmhurst College

Lamentations

Mary Joan Winn Leith

Department of Religious Studies, Stonehill College

Esther and Additions to EstherRuth

DIRECTORY OF CONTRIBUTORS 481

Bernard M. Levinson

Department of Classical and Near Eastern Studies,University of Minnesota; University of Minnesota LawSchool

Deuteronomy

James M. Lindenberger

Vancouver School of Theology,Emeritus

Letters

James R. Linville

Department of Religious Studies,University of Lethbridge

Joel

Darian R. Lockett

Department of Biblical and Theological Studies,Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

James

Harry O. Maier

Vancouver School of Theology

Shepherd of Hermas, The

Antti Marjanen

University of Helsinki

Mary, Gospel of

Jens-Christian Maschmeier

Ruhr-Universität Bochum,Germany

2 Corinthians

Christopher R. Matthews

Boston College, School of Theology and Ministry

Acts of the Apostles

P. Kyle McCarter

Department of Near Eastern Studies,Johns Hopkins University

Text Criticism: Hebrew Bible

Lee Martin McDonald

Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University, Emeritus

Lost Books

Martin McNamara

Milltown Institute, Dublin, Emeritus

Targumim

Marvin Meyer

Department of Religious Studies,Chapman University

Nag Hammadi Library

Gregory Mobley

Andover Newton Theological School

Judges

Sharon Rose Moughtin-Mumby

Diocese of Southwark, Church of England

Hosea

Carol A. Newsom

School of Theology and Graduate Division of Religion,Emory University

Daniel and Additions to Daniel

Stephen J. Patterson

Willamette University

Luke, Gospel According to

Ken M. Penner

Department of Religious Studies, St. Francis XavierUniversity

Dead Sea Scrolls

Peter S. Perry

Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago

Jude2 Peter

Richard I. Pervo

Saint Paul, Minnesota

Acts

Stanley E. Porter

McMaster Divinity College

Canon: New Testament

Volker Rabens

Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät,Ruhr-Universität Bochum,Germany

Ephesians

Tessa Rajak

Oriental Institute, University of Oxford

4 Maccabees

482 DIRECTORY OF CONTRIBUTORS

John Riches

Department of Theology and Religious Studies,University of Glasgow, Emeritus

Galatians

Henry W. Morisada Rietz

Department of Religious Studies, Grinnell College

Pesharim

Thomas A. Robinson

Department of Religious Studies,The University of Lethbridge

Ignatius, Letters of

Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta

Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies,Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Netherlands

Andrew, Acts of

Bas ter Haar Romeny

Peshitta Institute and Institute for Religious Studies,Leiden University, Netherlands

Peshitta and Other Syriac Versions

James R. Royse

Claremont School of Theology

Text Criticism: New Testament

Anders Runesson

Department of Religious Studies, McMaster University

Matthew, Gospel According to

Eileen M. Schuller

Department of Religious Studies, McMaster University

Psalm 151

Carolyn J. Sharp

Yale Divinity School

JeremiahMicah

Sarah Shectman

San Francisco Theological Seminary

Joshua: Reception History

Yvonne Sherwood

Department of Theology and Religious Studies,School of Critical Studies, University of Glasgow

Jonah

Jeffrey Stackert

The Divinity School, University of Chicago

Leviticus

Loren T. Stuckenbruck

Biblical Studies Department, Princeton Theological Seminary

Tobit

Marvin A. Sweeney

Claremont School of Theology

Zephaniah

Abraham Tal

Department of Hebrew Culture, Tel Aviv University

Samaritan Pentateuch

Zipora Talshir

Department of Bible,Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

1 Esdras

Lieve M. Teugels

University of Amsterdam, Netherlands

Rabbinic Literature: Hebrew Bible and Jewish Scriptures

Emanuel Tov

Department of Bible, HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem

Septuagint and Other Ancient Greek Translations

David S. Vanderhooft

Department of Theology, Boston College

Habakkuk

Jan G. van der Watt

Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands

1, 2, and 3 John

Gerrit J. van Steenbergen

United Bible Societies; Stellenbosch University,South Africa

Translations, English

Christian D. von Dehsen

Religion Department, Carthage College

2 Thessalonians

Charles A. Wanamaker

Department of Religious Studies,University of Cape Town

3 Maccabees

DIRECTORY OF CONTRIBUTORS 483

Nili Wazana

Department of Bible, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Joshua

Cana Werman

The Deichmann Program for Jewish and ChristianLiterature of the Hellenistic-Roman Era, Department ofBible, Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies,Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Jubilees

Benjamin G. Wright III

Department of Religion Studies,Lehigh University

Sirach

Magnus Zetterholm

Centre for Theology and Religious Studies, LundUniversity, Sweden

ColossiansPaul, Letters of

484 DIRECTORY OF CONTRIBUTORS