Several canon-related concepts originating in chronicles

Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Volumn 113, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 386-403

  Talshir, Zipora ^a  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60950274631     PISSN: 00442526     EISSN: 16130103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/zatw.2001.004     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Some date it as late as the 2nd century B.C.E. The issue was examined recently by Steins, specifically in connection with the formation of the canon. He emphasizes the canonical nature of the book, and assumes, accordingly, that it was written towards the closing of the canon, i.e. in the early Maccabean period; G. Steins, Zur Datierung der Chronik: Ein neuer methodischer Ansatz, ZAW 109 (1997), 84-92.
2. T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung, FRLANT 106, 1972, 125f.
3. E. Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees, 1947, 17.
4. On Persias's policy see: P. Frei, Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achämenidenreich, in: P. Frei / K. Koch. Reichsorganisation im Perserreich, OBO 55, 1984, 7-43.
5. Published by W. Spiegelberg, Die sogenannte Demotische Chronik des Pap. 215 der Bibliothèque Nationale du Paris, Demotische Studien 7, 1914.
6. See E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenthums, 1896, 66.
7. According to Blum, the very compilation of the Torah as a composition combining various currents, was a result of the need to yield 〉one Torah〈 - one authoritative document - for the approval of the Persian authorities; E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189, 1990, 333-360.
8. See I. L. Seeligmann, The Beginnings of Midrash in the Books of the Chronicles, Tarb. 49 (1980), 14-32 = Studies in Biblical Literature, 1992, 460-464 [Hebrew].
9. Haran says, in passing, that Samuel-Kings were canonical by the time the Chronicler wrote his book; M. Haran, The Biblical Collection, 1996, 72 [Hebrew].
10. The text in its present form is misleading. The Chronicler does not suggest two separate works; rather, »the chronicles of the Seers« is an alternative title to »the chronicles of the Kings of Israel«. The seers are non other than the anonymous prophets mentioned in II Reg 21,10, who turned in Chr into »historians« of Manasseh's time. Anbar convincingly shows that the repeated phrase »and his prayer« marks v. 19 as a corrective version for v. 18; M. Anbar, Mot en vedette (Stichwort) en vue d'une correction, BN 63 (1992), 7-11.
11. J. Fraenkel, The Methods of Aggada and Midrash I-II, 1991, [Hebrew], argues that the first thing to know in order to understand Midrash is that the Sages envisage the Bible as a closed corpus. Unlike the Qumranic Pesher or the Christian teaching, it does not reflect prophetic authority and does not reason that its suggested interpretation is the only one possible.
12. see Z. Talshir, The Three Deaths of Josiah and the Strata of Biblical Historiography, VT 46 (1996), esp. 226-228.
13. a in the light of Historico-literary Criticism: the Case of 2 Sam 24 and 1 Chr 21, Biblische und Judaistische Studien (FS Paolo Sacchi), 1990, 109-119;
14. As suggested by the reference to in II Chr 24,27. The term Midrash is indeed intriguing, implying as it may that the Chronicler in fact used an extended and adapted version of Samuel-Kings all along his history; see: J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient History, 1957, 226f. However, the Chronicler uses any of a wide range of terms as he sees fit; he speaks of his sources as »book« (in most cases), »the words of« (33,18), or (above), and the prophets' words which were cited in the historical books he calls »the words of«, »the prophecy of«, and »the vision of« (all 9,29; 32,32), and also (13,22).
15. See J. W. Wesselius, Analysis, Imitation and Emulation of Classical Texts in the Hebrew Bible, Dutch Studies - Near Eastern Languages and Literatures 2 (1996), 43-68.
16. See: I. L. Seeligmann, Die Auffassung Von der Prophétie in der deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung, VT.S 29 (1978), 270-279.
17. We should not, however, search for separate explanations for his handling of each prophet; see C. T. Begg, The Classical Prophets in the Chronistic History, BZ 32 (1988), 100-107.
18. See M. Haran, The Four Doxologies and the Five 〉Books〈 in Psalms, PIASH 8/1, 1989, 1 [Hebrew]. The alternative explanations to the relation between Chr and Psalms are rather dubious;
19. see C. A. Briggs, Psalms, ICC, 1906, lxxxiii;
20. H. Gunkel / J. Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen, 1933, 439f.;
21. See H. M. Orlinsky, Some Terms in the Prologue to Ben Sira and the Hebrew Canon, JBL 110 (1991), 483-490.
22. Williamson argues that since it does not stand to reason that such a custom continued even to the days of the Chronicler, it should be assumed that he derived this passage from some source which was available to him; see: H. G. M. Williamson, The Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the Deuteronomistic History, VT 32 (1982), 246.
23. C. Dohmen / M. Oeming, Biblischer Kanon warum und wozu? Eine Kanontheologie, QD 134, 1992;
24. G. Steins, Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschlußphänomen; Studien zur Entstehung und Theologie Von 1/2 Chronik, BBB 93, 1995.
25. See, for example J. Maier, Zwischen den Testamenten. Geschichte und Religion in der Zeit des zweiten Tempels, NEB.AT ErgBd. 3, 1990, 13f.
26. O. H. Steck, Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament. Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons, BThSt 17, 1991, 157-166.
27. B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 1979, 647.
28. R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit, 2. Vom Exil bis zu den Makkabäern, GAT 8/2 1992, 607f.
29. An early dating for the canon becomes quite customary; see S. Z. Leimann, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture. The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence, 1976;
30. R. T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 1985; and also Haran (above, n. 18). Steins (above, n. 48), 516f., carefully speaks of a specific form of canon (and not 〉the canon〈) which crystallized in the 2nd century B.C.E. In his opinion, it is impossible to speak of a canon at that time without a reference group: a canon was formed within a certain group, the one which lead the Maccabean restoration. Only by the end of the 1st century C.E. it turned into the canon of the whole of Judaism.