It is a good question, and one that is quite easy to answer because the clues are in the Bible itself. The Books of Samuel and Kings have a ‘historical core’ to them, this core is essentially repeated by the Chronicler, so we have two historian’s version of the same events, this is a great opportunity to compare writings and see how ‘history’ was written in ancient Israel.
A very good example of how ‘biblical scribes’ were selective or ideological in their writing is the comparison between the two versions of the Davidic Covenant given in 2 Samuel 7:11b-16 and 1 Chronicles 17:10b-14.
2 Samuel 7:11b-16.
[11b] Moreover the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a ‘house’.
[12] When your life is complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up one of your offspring after you, the issue of your own body, and I will establish his kingdom.
[13] He shall build a ‘house’ for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
[14] I will be his father, and he shall be my son.
When he does wrong, I will discipline him with the rod of men and oppression by the sons of men;
[15] He (?) will not turn my grace away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.
[16] And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.'"
1 Chronicles 17:10b-14
[10b] Moreover I declare to you that the LORD will build you a ‘house’.
[11] When your life is complete and you go to be with your fathers, I will raise up one of your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his rule.
[12] He shall build a ‘house’ for me, and I will establish his throne for ever.
[13a] I will be his father, and he shall be my son.
[13b]I will not take my grace away from him, as I took it from him who was before you.
[14] But I will establish him in my ‘house’ and in my kingdom for ever, and his throne shall be confirmed for ever.'"
Compare Samuel verse 13 with its parallel verse 12 in Chronicles. There are some subtle differences that demonstrate that the Chronicler’s purpose is to show that now, in the post-exilic era, that the emphasis is on God’s kingdom, the king is the ruler, elected by God, but the kingdom belongs to God.
Sam 13 says ‘He shall build a ‘house’ for my name,’ this is obviously a reference to the Temple, but the parallel in Chronicles 12 says ‘He shall build a ‘House’ for me is more like a reference to a dynasty. ‘House’ (byt) in Hebrew has many meanings but if you take Chron.12 to clarify the first half of the sentence ‘and I will establish his throne forever’ suggests that the ‘throne’ and the ‘house’ are related and imply a royal dynasty that will reign forever.
Notice as well that 2 Sam 13 claims that ‘I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever’, the Chronicler puts his own ‘spin’ on this verse and uses it for his own purpose of emphasising God’s kingdom when in the parallel verse he simply says that ‘I will establish his throne for ever. The Chronicler omits the mention of ‘his kingdom’ because in his eyes the kingdom is not the king’s, it is Gods.
By stating that David’s bloodline, his ‘House’ would be established forever this is a prerequisite for the messiah; he has to come from David’s royal bloodline.
The thing is, David was told that he wasn’t to build the Temple, it would be his son, David was not to build the Temple because he had blood on his hands, his adultery and his ‘murder’ of Uriah meant that David could not build the Temple. So, instead of David building a ‘House’ for the Lord, the Lord builds a ‘House’ for David.
These verses written by the Chronicler to establish the Davidic bloodline and to emphasise the primacy of Jerusalem as the chief cultic centre of Judaism. Martin Noth claims that the Chronicler’s main purpose is seen in the anti-Samaritan polemic that is found in the Chronicles. He says that the chronicler wants to demonstrate that the Jerusalem cultic community was the genuine successor of the ancient and legitimate ‘Israel’. The immediate opposition to these beliefs was the Samaritan community who had their own cult on Mount Gerizim. The support that Noth uses for this is the fact that all the traditions that were common to both communities were left out For example, both communities followed the Pentateuch, hence there is no Pentateuchal material in Chronicles.
The Chronicler essentially does repeat the ‘history’ in Samuel and Kings, but he just manipulates it a little in order to put across his theological beliefs. In a way, all written histories are biased to some degree, the Chronicler wants to highlight divine authority so he just tweaks the existing historical record to illustrate this.
The Chronicler was really a bit of a propagandist, his treatment of Saul is an excellent example of this. The Chronicler hardly mentions Saul, and what he does mention is derogatory, so his record of ‘history’ is very selective here.
He uses Saul as a perfect foil for David, in contrasting Saul it highlights how special David was.
Saul consults a medium, David consults God.
Saul loses to the Philistines, David defeats them
Saul’s ‘house’ has fallen, David’s is established for ever.
Saul is defeated and Israel is seen as weak, helpless and abandoned, this is the so-called ‘Exilic’ situation and this can only be ended by a King who is faithful to God, and the Chronicler is intent on showing David’s faithfulness and that God will establish David’s bloodline as the legitimate royal dynasty.
A very interesting omission by the Chronicler is the leaving out of 2 Samuel 14b ‘When he does wrong, I will discipline him with the rod of men and oppression by the sons of men.’
I think that the omission of this verse is to show his community that the Davidic kings will be faithful to God and will not require any punishment. The faithfulness of the Davidic kings will mean that God will protect Israel as long as the King does not transgress, like Saul transgressed. This appears to be a device used to reassure the community that they will not enter another Exilic period because the god will not take his grace away from him as he took it away from him who was before David.
The Chronicler does reproduce faithfully quite a bit of Samuel and Kings, for example:
2 Samuel 5:6-9:
6 The king and his men marched to Jerusalem to attack the Jebusites, who lived there. The Jebusites said to David, "You will not get in here; even the blind and the lame can ward you off." They thought, "David cannot get in here." 7 Nevertheless, David captured the fortress of Zion, the City of David.
8 On that day, David said, "Anyone who conquers the Jebusites will have to use the water shaft to reach those 'lame and blind' who are David's enemies." That is why they say, "The 'blind and lame' will not enter the palace."
9 David then took up residence in the fortress and called it the City of David. He built up the area around it, from the supporting terraces inward.
1 Chronicles 11:4-8:
4 David and all the Israelites marched to Jerusalem (that is, Jebus). The Jebusites who lived there 5 said to David, "You will not get in here." Nevertheless, David captured the fortress of Zion, the City of David.
6 David had sad, "Whoever leads the attack on the Jebusites will become commander-in-chief." Joab son of Zeruiah went up first, and so he received the command.
7 David then took up residence in the fortress, and so it was called the City of David. 8 He built up the city around it, from the supporting terraces to the surrounding wall, while Joab restored the rest of the city.
2 Kings 14:2-6:
2 He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother's name was Jehoaddin; she was from Jerusalem. 3 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD , but not as his father David had done. In everything he followed the example of his father Joash. 4 The high places, however, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.
5 After the kingdom was firmly in his grasp, he executed the officials who had murdered his father the king. 6 Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."
2 Chronicles 25:1-4:
1Amaziah was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother's name was Jehoaddin; she was from Jerusalem. 2 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD , but not wholeheartedly. 3 After the kingdom was firmly in his control, he executed the officials who had murdered his father the king. 4 Yet he did not put their sons to death, but acted in accordance with what is written in the Law, in the Book of Moses, where the LORD commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."
These are basically the same, there is not a great deal of difference between the two and they are clearly talking about the same events.
I do no think that accuracy was the goal of the biblical scribes, I think it was important for them to keep an historical core to the writings, but that some writers glossed these reports is certainly not in question. So although they are recording what they believed to be an accurate account of the historical events, they exercise a lot of poetic license in order to prove theological points.
Brian.
™ Version 4.2
