Now, before we continue our chat about the life of David (or Solomon, for that matter), we need to take some time to try and understand the sources that we’re using to unpack this period of history. If you are like me, this is where the story starts to blur and my eyes begin to glaze over. Part of the reason for this is because we are on the cusp of a period of history that will be loaded with short stories about a whole list of kings and their disobedience (with a few exceptions). Another reason is that it becomes hard, once the kingdom divides, to follow which king is whose king, and whose son is which king, and so on and so on.
Another reason I get very glassy in this section is because it always seemed like I was reading two versions of the same story and I could never figure out if we were having flashbacks or what transition I missed. I never felt like this was explained well, so as I look at this period of history with my students (in the books of 1/2 Samuel, 1/2 Kings, and 1/2 Chronicles), I try to be very intentional about mapping out our sources. If it seems like we’re reading two different versions of the same story — it’s because we are.
While I’ll be skipping a lot of extra-curricular information, I’m going to attempt to map out these sections using my own language. While I’m sure there are great sources out there for this, I have never found a package that I liked. I’m sure that many people have done this better than I’m about to and I’m sure that some Bible scholar would tear the language I choose to use to shreds, but nevertheless, I want to make an attempt. (That’s a disclaimer. I’m always nervous when stuff comes out of my own mind and not from a great source. Be warned.)
We see two stories for this period of history in the Hebrew scriptures. One of them is the story as seen in the books of Samuel and Kings. Chronicles is another recording of the same period of history. Yet, they are much more than just two different records. Let’s attack them one at a time.
And before we do, let’s just acknowledge how much debate swirls about all of the details of authorship. Scholars argue about who wrote the books. They argue about when the books were written. They argue about why the books were written and the perspective and/or the agenda we encounter in each. I don’t say this to trivialize those arguments; on the contrary, these debates are incredibly important. In particular, the debate about WHEN, is one of the most significant in trying to understand what is taking place in these records from a literary standpoint.
I will not be trying to speak into these debates, but trying to take very general stances based on everything from consensus, to my own personal leanings.
1/2 SAMUEL & 1/2 KINGS
I like to argue that this version of the story could be read from the perspective of the northern kingdom of Israel. I use that designation very loosely, as I think what I’m trying to point out is where this version is written relative to its (supposed) reference in history — not geography. This portion of history reads more like the headlines of your current events than it does as a reflection on earlier history. However, it is important to point out immediately that ancient easterners do not record history in the same way that modern westerners do. They are not nearly as interested in recording the FACTS with an intense commitment to PRECISION and ACCURACY. Instead, they would like to tell the story of what’s happening in a way that compels the reader to a particular course of action. For the ancient Jew, history is prophetic (and by prophetic, we are not referring to “future-telling,” but the mouthpiece of God to the current day).
One doesn’t need to look much further than where the books are arranged in the Hebrew scriptures. I see many students are shocked to find out that when the Christians arranged the canon that we use today, they rearranged the book order of the Old Testament. Inquiring minds often want to know why we did such a thing, to which my oversimplified answer is, “in order to make the Jews look bad.” This usually doesn’t please many people, who quickly argue that the canon was arranged according to genre (a western category); while this is technically true, to ignore the historical anti-Semitism that is rampant at the point of history where we arranged the canon would be foolish. One has to explain why we felt the need to change the order in the first place.
The original “Old Testament” was called the “TaNaKh,” which is shorthand for the three sections of the Hebrew scriptures: Torah (the books of Moses, often referred to as the Pentateuch), the Nevi’im (“the prophets”), and the Ketuvim (“the writings”). While the “Christian Old Testament” ends with the prophecy of Malachi, therefore placing a curse on the people of the Old Testament, the Bible that Jesus was familiar with ended with the book of Chronicles and a promise to return the people to their land.
The whole reason we’re on this rabbit trail is to make the point that the “history” of Samuel/Kings is found in the Nevi’im — the prophets. History is prophetic. So while I describe this section of history as being “the headlines” from Israel, I do not mean this in a cold, detached anchorman-delivering-the-facts-of-the-event kind of way. Their “reporting” is much different than ours.
So to summarize, I like to refer to Samuel and Kings as the “agenda-driven headlines from Israel.”
1/2 CHRONICLES
In contrast to Samuel/Kings, Chronicles is written from the perspective of Judah. Again, I use this term loosely, as I’m referencing time and not geography. Most scholars would say that Chronicles is written much later (or, at the very least, Samuel/Kings is written to give the impression of earlier authorship). This also affects the way that Chronicles reads. I teach my students that if Samuel/Kings is supposed to be read as headlines, then Chronicles is written like a documentary.
Imagine you were comparing the headlines from the period of the Vietnam War from a documentary that was made decades later. You are hearing two different records of the same period of history. While the headlines will carry one perspective, loaded with insight that is felt “in the moment,” the documentary is trying to look back and tell the story with a sense of hindsight. Chronicles is the Jewish record of hindsight. And these two tellings of history will pack a wallop of information in their perspectives alone.
You may remember that Chronicles is what ended the Hebrew scriptures, meaning that it is not found in the Nevi’im, but in the Ketuvim — or the “Writings.” While both records have an agenda that is supposed to compel the reader to action, they come from different historical reference points. In this sense, Chronicles is much more like the “history” we are familiar with. Just as we are aware that those who compile history tell a story in the way they compile it, so does the Chonicler.
And so to summarize this section, I would say that Chronicles is a “documentary perspective from Judah.”
You may wonder why we’re taking all this time to get lost in literature, but it will become clear as to why it’s important in our next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment