Here are two apparent contradictions that can be seen by comparing parallel historical accounts in the combined books of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. As with many such “problems” with the Bible you will find on the internet, they involve numbers (which are notoriously hard for scribes to copy accurately from generation to generation) and discrepancies in chronology.
Did the first attempt to move the ark to Jerusalem occur before (I Chronicles 13) or after (II Samuel 6:1-11) defeating the Philistines?
In posing this chronological quandary the skeptic who proposed it is naively assuming that all historical accounts are written with the events narrated in strictly in the order in which they occurred. But that is not even true of modern secular histories, much less biblical accounts which are written primarily for the theological lessons they can convey.
In fact, one can point to examples throughout the OT and NT where events are told in a literary or topical order instead. Just look at the last chapters of Judges, which all scholars agree should have been placed toward the start of the book instead if chronology were all that mattered. Or consider the way Luke has the tendency to group Jesus' sayings together according to similar topics.
With that in mind, we can approach the above question, quoting the opinions of five different scholars who explain in slightly different words what the respective biblical authors have accomplished by the different ways in which they present the historical material.
Myers: In discussing I Chronicles, he notes, “The most striking feature of the story is that the attempted removal of the ark to the place where David was (vs. 12) was a religious matter and not a semi-military ceremony as in Samuel. Moreover, Yahweh was invoked too. Because it seemed right in the sight of all, the venture was made so as to remedy the defeat in Saul's attitude toward the ark...That is why the passage stands before the Philistine raids here whereas it follows them in Samuel. It must be remembered that the Chronicler's story is primarily religious and he arranges his material accordingly.”
Then if we look at the account that follows the moving of the ark, we can see a second reason for the way the material is arranged. “On closer inspection of the material itself it is obvious that...his purpose...was rather to show further how Yahweh was with David in his undertaking as shown by the progress on his building enterprises, the expansion of this family and his defeat of the Philistines and so partially offsets the disconcerting failure to deal with the ark.”
Ellison on I Chronicles 13:1-17:27: “This section represents 2 Sa. 6:11-7:29 with considerable additions of a religious nature. In order to enhance the importance of David's dealings with the ark, the Chronicler has presumably put the first attempt to bring it to Jerusalem out of its proper chronological position as shown in 2 Samuel.”
Williamson: “In the earlier history, the whole account is given in one continuous chapter (2 Sam 6)...The Chronicler, however, has divided this account between chs 13 and 15-16..by its new position,..., as well as some light editorial touches, this itself now contributes in a fresh way to the development of the Chronicler's main concerns.”
He explains what he means by saying that “the various blessings which this chapter describes are, because of their new position, to be seen as a result of seeking the ark; consequently, the chapter shows in a number of details a reversal of the 'exilic' situation described in the account of Saul's death (ch. 10)...We may observe further the emphasis is placed on this theme of blessing at the opening and close of the chapter (cf. 2 and 17), indicating that this is the correct approach to its interpretation.”
Thus, in I Chronicles 14:2 the author has added “highly” to the wording in II Samuel 5:2 (David's kingdom was highly exalted) and appended v. 17 regarding David's fame, not found in II Samuel 5.
Howard: “The material here [I Chronicles] follows a different order from Sam., but almost certainly neither is in chronological order in respect of David's reign...The point of the Chronicler in recording the events here, however, is clear. He wished to show that God was with David in his enterprise in spite of the set-back over the ark.”
Eskenazi: “Even when Samuel was still venerated as an unbiased history, Chronicles was already read as if its particular literary constructs express its own theological and historical preoccupations.”
“In the case of historiographic material, such as Chronicles, a literary analysis neither proves nor disproves the historicity of Chronicles. The literary analysis rather explores what the text says by looking at how it says it. Placing the battles with the Philistines after the initial attempts to bring the ark toward its destination allows Chronicles to link the ark more firmly to the dialogue between David and God. Twice in the battles against the Philistines David consults with God and receives direct answers. Indeed these are the only semblance of dialogue in the ark narrative of chaps. 13-16. Chronicles implies that the proximity of the ark facilitates such communication between David and God.”
You can see from the above that although the scholars may differ a little in their specific explanations, they all agree that the basically chronological account of II Samuel has taken on new theological significance by the way the Chronicler re-ordered his material.
There is, however, yet another approach, that of literary structure, which may alone account for the order of these two narratives or work in conjunction with the theological rationales mentioned above. This is illustrated in the two proposed symmetrical organizations given below:
Figure 1: Organization of I Chronicles 11-20
A. Warriors and Battles (chs.11-12)
B. The Ark is Moved (ch.13)
C. David's House Established (ch.14)
B'. The Ark is Moved (chs.15-16)
C'. David's House Established (ch.17)
A'. Warriors and Battles (chs.18-20)
Figure 2: Organization of II Samuel 5-8
A. Various battles (II Sam. 5)
B. God's House (II Sam. 6)
1. The ark carried in (6:1-4)
2. Joyful response (6:5)
3. Inappropriate response (6:6-10a)
4. Obededom’s house blessed (6:9-11)
1'. The ark carried in (6:12-13)
2'. Joyful response (6:14-15a)
3'. Inappropriate response (6:15b)
4'. David's house not blessed (6:20-23)
B'. David's House (II Sam. 7)
A'. Various battles (II Sam. 8)
In what year of King Asa's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die? (a) 26th year (I Kings 15:33-16:8) or (b) he was still alive in the 36th year (II Chronicles 16:1).
Williamson explains in some depth that the Chronicler elsewhere changes the chronology systematically so as to locate punishments of kings to follow directly after their time of disobedience and delays punishments or deaths as the reward for the obedience of kings.
As to the specific mention of “36th year” in II Chronicles 16:1, it is proposed that “in the reign of king Asa” was a later scribal addition to an original text which was referring to the 36th year of the Divided Monarchy instead.
Ellison calls Williamson's explanation “more plausible than convincing,” while Howard labels it as “more ingenious than convincing.” Howard, however, notes that the famous archeologist William Albright has found evidence from an inscription on a commemoration stele dating to the reign of Ben-Hadad from a slightly later period indicating the possible accuracy of the II Chronicles chronology over the account in I Kings. In that case, it would appear that the phrase “26th year” there could have been a simple scribal error in copying “36th” instead. As I have explained elsewhere, such accidental errors are much more likely to have crept into the Bible with the transmission of numbers than with words, and in any case are rarely of any importance in affecting our overall understanding the text.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments