Review in: Hebrew Studies Journal
I AND II CHRONICLES. By
Sara Japhet. The Old Testament Library. Pp. xxv + 1007. Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993. Cloth, $48.00. (review in: Hebrew Studies Journal)
This commentary is the result of a lifetime's study of the Book of Chronicles. On almost every page it demonstrates Japhet's command of the literature and issues in Chronicles research. It also complements Japhet's earlier work, recently translated into English, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (Frankfurt, Bern, New York: Lang, 1989 [Hebrew edition, 1977]). In these two monographs, we have a handy reference to Japhet's seminal work on Chronicles.
It is difficult to do justice to this massive commentary (over 1000 pages) in a short review. Yet, Japhet has conveniently laid out the issues in the literature as well as her own position and approach in the first fifty pages of the commentary. This will serve to organize my remarks on the commentary.
This commentary is the result of a lifetime's study of the Book of Chronicles. On almost every page it demonstrates Japhet's command of the literature and issues in Chronicles research. It also complements Japhet's earlier work, recently translated into English, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (Frankfurt, Bern, New York: Lang, 1989 [Hebrew edition, 1977]). In these two monographs, we have a handy reference to Japhet's seminal work on Chronicles.
It is difficult to do justice to this massive commentary (over 1000 pages) in a short review. Yet, Japhet has conveniently laid out the issues in the literature as well as her own position and approach in the first fifty pages of the commentary. This will serve to organize my remarks on the commentary.
After some perfunctory
matters, the introduction addresses the "Scope and extent of the
Chronicler's work." Japhet's position in this matter is well-known from
her earlier writings, where she first questioned the traditional view of the
common authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles. This consensus was shattered
first by Japhet ("The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and
Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew," VT 18 [1968] 332-372) and then by H. G.
M. Williamson (Israel in the Book of Chronicles [Cambridge, 1977]). Although
the weight of opinion seems to have shifted to Japhet's position, there is by
no means a consensus. In fact, in this same Old Testament Library Series,
Joseph Blenkinsopp's commentary on Ezra-Nehemiah (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1988) presents the opposite position, restating and fortifying the unity of
Chronicles and Ezra Nehemiah. Two issues have not been emphasized sufficiently
in this debate. First of all, there will be natural lines of similarity between
the two works since they both belong, broadly speaking, to the same time period
and represent the interests of the temple cult. Second, there will be de facto aspects of divergence since both Chronicles and
Ezra-Nehemiah make extensive use of sources which are often incorporated with
only minor editing. With these points in mind, it seems that a consensus may
never be reached on the scope of the "Chronistic work," though we
certainly can no longer assume that Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah comprised one
work.
Throughout the commentary Japhet comes out strongly for the unity, if not originality, of Chronicles. Beginning with the influence of Pentateuchal criticism, Chronicles has been variously viewed as resulting from multiple sources, or including secondary lists and registers (e.g., 1 Chr 1-9 and 23 27), or as being edited and revised. Japhet cogently argues against these approaches, seeing instead "a single author, with a very distinct and peculiar literary method." This method involves the citation and elaboration of a plethora of earlier sources without real interest in "a rational, meticulous harmony of all the possible details" (p. 7).
Under the rubric “The Sources and their use" (pp. 14-23), Japhet discusses both the internal evidence for sources and the explicit statements about sources in Chronicles. Scholars have often tied the issue of sources with an apologetic debate concerning the reliability and authority of Chronicles. Although Japhet argues that a wide variety of sources existed and were used by the Chronicler, she rejects the apologetic approach. Even if the Chronicler relied on authentic sources, Japhet points out that they could be used in an uncritical or anachronistic manner. Here, I heartily agree with Japhet. There is abundant evidence for the use of sources in Chronicles. Obviously, the Chronicler relied heavily on the Pentateuch and Former Prophets; it is also clear that a wide range of lists and genealogical material was available to the Chronicler. However, many will not agree with Japhet's inclusion of Ezra-Nehemiah among the Chronicler's sources because it assumes its chronological priority to Chronicles.
Against the recent tendency to assign an early date (ca. 515 B.C.E.) for the composition of Chronicles (first advanced by A. Welch The Work of the Chronicler [London: Oxford, 1939]), Japhet suggests a relatively late date for the composition of Chronicles (ca. 324 B.C.E.) in her discussion of "the author and his time" (pp. 23-28). Japhet argues that the relative paucity of Persian influence in Chronicles suggests a late date for Chronicles (p. 26); others will undoubtedly argue that this points to a com position early in the Persian period. The specific evidence for this late date is found in the genealogy of Jehoiachin (1 Chr 3:17-24), which provides a date ranging between 460 and 320 B.C.E. depending on how one counts the generations (either seven or fourteen). Unfortunately, Japhet does not make it clear why she chooses the latter interpretation-this reviewer would prefer the earlier date. Japhet presents both ideological (e.g., interest in David and the Levites) and compositional evidence (e.g., use of the Wiederaufnahme) that 1 Chronicles 1-9 was part of the Chronicler's original composition (thus eliminating the possibility of a very early date for Chronicles). Although Japhet cites Williamson's excellent article ("Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler's Genealogy of Judah," JBL 98 [1979] 351 359) on the genealogy of Judah, her ideological argument could have been strengthened by incorporating it.
In her discussion of "Literary genre and forms" (pp. 31-41), Japhet's commentary becomes an apologetic for Chronicles as "history," and this continues into the section "Aim and major theological themes" (pp. 43-49). She emphasizes that the Chronicler "had strong historical and theological motives." The theological motives are clear, the historical motives are less evident. As for the Chronicler's dependence on sources, the same can be said for the historical psalms. There seem to be few antiquarian interests in the Chronicler's work, yet everywhere there is an interest in sermonizing to a post-exilic audience. For example, in Shemaiah's speech to Rehoboam (2 Chr 12:5-8) there is no reason to focus on historical realia behind the expression "they shall know my service and the service of the kingdoms of the countries" as Japhet does (p. 680). The historical reference is not to be found in an Egyptian invasion in the tenth century but rather in the Babylonian exile in the sixth century; it is rhetorical not historical. In seeking the historical motives here and elsewhere Japhet overlooks the theological or, more precisely, the homiletic motives. These homiletic tendencies betray the didactic aims of Chronicles (e.g., C. T. Begg, "'Seeking Yahweh' and the Purpose of Chronicles," Louvaiiz Studies 9 [1982] 128 141) and suggest that the book was formulated as an extended historical sermon to the post-exilic returnees (W. M. Schniedewind, "Chronicles as History and Homily” in The Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies. Panel Sessions: Bible 1993 [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1994]).
There will always be points of disagreement with a commentator; in this case they in no way detract from the immensity of Japhet's achievement. The significance of this commentary goes beyond Chronicles' scholarship because Japhet often sheds light both on issues of general controversy (e.g., history of the priesthood, 2 Chr 19:4-11, pp. 770-774) and on problems of methodology in biblical scholarship. Japhet's work is also exceptional because of its attention to sources (especially Samuel-Kings), the use of rabbinic and mediaeval Jewish interpretation and her mastery of the Hebrew text (rather than an English translation). This commentary is an indispensable tool for the study of the Book of Chronicles.
Throughout the commentary Japhet comes out strongly for the unity, if not originality, of Chronicles. Beginning with the influence of Pentateuchal criticism, Chronicles has been variously viewed as resulting from multiple sources, or including secondary lists and registers (e.g., 1 Chr 1-9 and 23 27), or as being edited and revised. Japhet cogently argues against these approaches, seeing instead "a single author, with a very distinct and peculiar literary method." This method involves the citation and elaboration of a plethora of earlier sources without real interest in "a rational, meticulous harmony of all the possible details" (p. 7).
Under the rubric “The Sources and their use" (pp. 14-23), Japhet discusses both the internal evidence for sources and the explicit statements about sources in Chronicles. Scholars have often tied the issue of sources with an apologetic debate concerning the reliability and authority of Chronicles. Although Japhet argues that a wide variety of sources existed and were used by the Chronicler, she rejects the apologetic approach. Even if the Chronicler relied on authentic sources, Japhet points out that they could be used in an uncritical or anachronistic manner. Here, I heartily agree with Japhet. There is abundant evidence for the use of sources in Chronicles. Obviously, the Chronicler relied heavily on the Pentateuch and Former Prophets; it is also clear that a wide range of lists and genealogical material was available to the Chronicler. However, many will not agree with Japhet's inclusion of Ezra-Nehemiah among the Chronicler's sources because it assumes its chronological priority to Chronicles.
Against the recent tendency to assign an early date (ca. 515 B.C.E.) for the composition of Chronicles (first advanced by A. Welch The Work of the Chronicler [London: Oxford, 1939]), Japhet suggests a relatively late date for the composition of Chronicles (ca. 324 B.C.E.) in her discussion of "the author and his time" (pp. 23-28). Japhet argues that the relative paucity of Persian influence in Chronicles suggests a late date for Chronicles (p. 26); others will undoubtedly argue that this points to a com position early in the Persian period. The specific evidence for this late date is found in the genealogy of Jehoiachin (1 Chr 3:17-24), which provides a date ranging between 460 and 320 B.C.E. depending on how one counts the generations (either seven or fourteen). Unfortunately, Japhet does not make it clear why she chooses the latter interpretation-this reviewer would prefer the earlier date. Japhet presents both ideological (e.g., interest in David and the Levites) and compositional evidence (e.g., use of the Wiederaufnahme) that 1 Chronicles 1-9 was part of the Chronicler's original composition (thus eliminating the possibility of a very early date for Chronicles). Although Japhet cites Williamson's excellent article ("Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler's Genealogy of Judah," JBL 98 [1979] 351 359) on the genealogy of Judah, her ideological argument could have been strengthened by incorporating it.
In her discussion of "Literary genre and forms" (pp. 31-41), Japhet's commentary becomes an apologetic for Chronicles as "history," and this continues into the section "Aim and major theological themes" (pp. 43-49). She emphasizes that the Chronicler "had strong historical and theological motives." The theological motives are clear, the historical motives are less evident. As for the Chronicler's dependence on sources, the same can be said for the historical psalms. There seem to be few antiquarian interests in the Chronicler's work, yet everywhere there is an interest in sermonizing to a post-exilic audience. For example, in Shemaiah's speech to Rehoboam (2 Chr 12:5-8) there is no reason to focus on historical realia behind the expression "they shall know my service and the service of the kingdoms of the countries" as Japhet does (p. 680). The historical reference is not to be found in an Egyptian invasion in the tenth century but rather in the Babylonian exile in the sixth century; it is rhetorical not historical. In seeking the historical motives here and elsewhere Japhet overlooks the theological or, more precisely, the homiletic motives. These homiletic tendencies betray the didactic aims of Chronicles (e.g., C. T. Begg, "'Seeking Yahweh' and the Purpose of Chronicles," Louvaiiz Studies 9 [1982] 128 141) and suggest that the book was formulated as an extended historical sermon to the post-exilic returnees (W. M. Schniedewind, "Chronicles as History and Homily” in The Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies. Panel Sessions: Bible 1993 [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1994]).
There will always be points of disagreement with a commentator; in this case they in no way detract from the immensity of Japhet's achievement. The significance of this commentary goes beyond Chronicles' scholarship because Japhet often sheds light both on issues of general controversy (e.g., history of the priesthood, 2 Chr 19:4-11, pp. 770-774) and on problems of methodology in biblical scholarship. Japhet's work is also exceptional because of its attention to sources (especially Samuel-Kings), the use of rabbinic and mediaeval Jewish interpretation and her mastery of the Hebrew text (rather than an English translation). This commentary is an indispensable tool for the study of the Book of Chronicles.
William
M. Schniedewind
University of California-Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1511
University of California-Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1511
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten