1 and 2 Chronicles as a discourse of power

perfect king. He is credited with founding the religious cult, which is contradicting the view in Exodus. The Jerusalem temple cult is legitimised and asserted as representing the only accurate religion. Chronicles 1 and 2 secured the temple elite’s position by legitimising their actions, functioning in this community as a discourse of power for as long as the (second) temple existed. Being a discourse of power, it set margins and excluded various groups usually considered part of the people of YHWH. The destruction of the (second) temple led to the disempowerment of this text, opening the way for it to be included in the Hebrew canon. The key insights of this article were that 1 and 2 Chronicles were used as a discourse of power, but the power block was lifted once the second temple was destroyed. Contribution: This article fitted into the scope of the journal by using historical-critical methods but also concepts from poststructuralism, namely the concept of powers behind texts and in language.


Introduction
Over the past few decades, linguistic and textual studies have unlocked new ways of interpreting and understanding texts. Philosophical impulses mostly contributed to this rekindling of views. Notions such as 'intratextuality', 'intertextuality', 'extratextuality', 'master narrative', and 'contra narrative' started to play a key role in studies on literature and associated discourses. These studies disclosed that texts are always in a relationship with other texts or reactions to them -they never exist in isolation. As texts are socially determined, there are always different narratives about the same event. Counternarratives are set up against master narratives -not to replace the master narratives but to 'de-dogmatise' them. Counternarratives aim to counter the tendency of master narratives to totalise or marginalise; they contest the master narrative's claim to universal truth (cf. Breytenbach 1997(cf. Breytenbach :1166. Contexts and social environments control the content of texts. Consequently, no narrative, record or historical account can be objective. The social context motivates the historiographer to retell history with his or her selection of material, nuance and emphasis. Concerning the purpose of historiography, Jeismann (1985) emphasises two matters in particular: history is told or written, whether deliberately or unwittingly, to justify one's identity in the present, as well as to legitimise present claims. He summarises it as follows:
Without going in-depth into literature terminology, the author would like to define the concept of 'discourse of power' as understood in this article. It is a discourse or text that a narrator creates in a specific context to empower a specific group and strengthen their identity, legitimising their claims, actions and conduct and simultaneously excluding another group or other groups. 1 A discourse of power always originates in specific circumstances and is written for specific circumstances. A discourse of power can therefore only operate as such for as long as the context for which it was written prevails. When circumstances change, the text can strictly no longer function as or be described as a discourse of power. 2 This article aims to enquire about the power plays behind Chronicles 1 and 2, as it was written with nuances, omissions and additions. The Chronicler 3 used the source documents (Genesis, Samuel, Kings and smaller selections from other sources -Auld 1999) extremely selectively while claiming that Chronicles constituted a historical record (Beentjes 2002;Japhet 1993;Jonker 2007c;Klein 2006;Knoppers 2003aKnoppers , 2004. The questions of interest are the following: 'Who could gain from this retelling of history? Who were the powers behind 1 and 2 Chronicles?' To answer these questions, it is necessary to consider the following aspects. Firstly, the context or circumstances in which these texts were written have to be determined. Secondly, a comparison should be made between Chronicles and its source documents, and the most obvious discrepancies within context have to be identified. Then, it will be possible to identify the Chronicler's ideology as a point of departure. Finally, with the ideology and the context (social text) in mind, it will be possible to see if and how Chronicles could function as a discourse of power.
2.The history of communism in Russia is a good example. The texts that had to legitimise this regime effectively lost their power when Boris Yeltsin declared Russia independent and instituted democracy.
3.The term 'Chronicler' is used in this study to refer to the author(s) of the books 1 and 2 Chronicles. The usage of this term does not indicate that the author believes that the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles are a unit. It can be noted that for many years, scholars believed that Ezra and Nehemiah could also be included in the work composed by this author (cf. Blenkinsopp 1988:47-54;Fensham 1982:2-4). It is, however, now generally accepted that linguistic and theological research has shown this not to be the case (Duke 1999:11;Japhet 1968:331-332;Klein 2001:385;Smith 2010:4). The term 'Chronicler' might refer to one or more authors. 'Chronicles', unless specified, in this article refers to both books together.
literature, the Targum and manuscripts from Qumran. Some of these are typically part of the language used in the time of the second temple. Terminology associated with the cult and the temple is also more often found in this book than in others (Williamson 1977:45-47). Likewise, some expressions which originated relatively late, as well as standard expressions usually associated with the temple, are found in Chronicles. Language and terminology found in the rabbinical literature, the Targum and the Qumran documents are also common in this book (Williamson 1977:48-59). The vocabulary may sometimes be unusual compared with the rest of the Hebrew Bible but is quite unremarkable compared to rabbinical Hebrew or that of the Mishnah and the Targumim (Kalimi 2005:278). Williamson (1977:83) Wilcock 1987 for a discussion of the dating). Kalimi (2005:1) states that it is generally assumed that the book was collated during the second temple period, based on the language used and references to characters and events from the Persian Era. The general viewpoint scholars subscribe to is that Levites wrote the book (cf., among others, Labahn 2003:115;Smith 1984:257).
It is difficult to give an entire picture of the sociopolitical circumstances prevailing at that time, because not many historical writings from this time are available (cf. Grabbe 1994;Riley 1993;Smith 1984:219-247 as well as Smith 1987:113, for a discussion of religious life [the cult] in Jerusalem during the Persian Era). Scholars have studied extrabiblical documents and sources to describe the social structure. According to Smith (1984:219), priestly families, which were part of the greater tribe of the Levites, fulfilled priestly functions in the Israelite sanctuaries. When foreign invasions and internal reformations destroyed the provincial sanctuaries, the priests from the Jerusalem temple prohibited the provincial Levites from performing any services in the temple. In the time of Nehemiah, they became the ruling group because Nehemiah had summoned them to Jerusalem. He used them as guards in the temple and offered them 10% of the duty raised on agricultural products from the province as remuneration. Once they were stationed in the temple, they started performing all kinds of functions in the temple. Carroll (1994) and Clines (1994) argue that the second temple was not very important to the writers of the Bible. They argue that holding on to the Jerusalem temple was a sectarian activity that represented the interests of only a minor group and that the rebuilding of the temple was not in the interest of the people. They point out that it was a prestige project encouraged by the elite and undertaken to serve their vanity.
Clines's view of Judean history leaves much room for debate and is, in the author's view, too radical. Nevertheless, he correctly points out the enrichment of the temple personnel, the fact that they were an elitist group (a remnant of the 'true Israel') as well as the fact that, by implication, they wanted to force the temple cult upon the rest of Israel (cf. also Albertz 2003:2). 4

Selective omissions and additions in the use of the source documents
It was mentioned earlier that historiography is characterised by selecting, nuancing and emphasising sources to adapt them to the author's situation (cf. Duke 1999;Kalimi 2005). The phenomenon of selective presentation in Chronicles has also been referred to. Some aspects are emphasised and nuanced through selective writing (cf. Riley 1993:28). Specific attention will be devoted below to the selections made from the available sources when Chronicles was written and to the over-emphasising and under-emphasising of facts.
Although this genealogy as a whole is very important, the immediate family of each important person in the main line receives special attention. Families mentioned include, for example, the family of Noah (1 Chr 1:4), Israel (Jacob, 1 Chr 2:1-2), Jesse and David (1 Chr 2:13-16, 3:1-9) and Josiah and Jehoiakim (1 Chr 3:15-16). Where these additions are inserted, the first son mentioned may be the oldest, as in the case of Noah's son Shem (1 Chr 1:4) and Jacob's son Reuben (1 Chr 2:1), but it can also be a younger but more important descendant, as in the case of Abraham's son Isaac (1 Chr 1:28). The lists are evidently borrowed from 4.It is important to mention in this regard the later developments in the studies of Chronicles and in this regard to refer specifically to Knoppers (2003b), who was one of the first voices to introduce the idea that Chronicles was influenced by Greek historiography and classical Greek writers. See also the arguments of Jonker (2008) concerning the international influence on Chronicles. The aspect of the Persian imperial context is thoroughly discussed by Wiesehöfer (2007aWiesehöfer ( , 2007bWiesehöfer ( , 2009 and is a very valuable information concerning the possible context of Chronicles. 5.See also the article of Gary Knoppers (2003b) which deals mainly with genealogies in Chronicles.
Genesis. 6 There are points of correspondence with the material in Genesis, but the two versions are not identical. The genealogies in Chronicles do not represent a natural line but rather those of the 'chosen' group. Except for two sections (1 Chr 1:32-33, Abraham's descendants; and 1 Chr 2:1-2, Israel's (Jacob's) decendants), the same sequence is used as in Genesis. Putting Ishmael and his descendants first, the story of Keturah ends up in a different place than one would expect based on Genesis 25 (cf. 1 Chr 1:29-31 with Gn 25:13-16 and Gn 25:1-4). Where nominative constructions ('the son of') were regularly used earlier, a verb is used in the latter case to make it clear that Abraham begat Isaac. In 1 Chronicles 1:34, the verb ‫ילד‬ (yalad) is used to emphasise the bloodline. When reference is made to Abraham's line, it literally reads: 'and he, Abraham, begat Isaac and Israel'. According to the Pentateuch, Abraham is the father of all Hebrews; consequently, it was very important for the narrator in Chronicles to emphasise the bloodline, namely that Abraham is Israel's direct grandfather.
The second section of the genealogies runs from 1 Chronicles 2:2 to 4:23. It can be divided into the following three parts: 1 Chronicles 2:3-55 records the first part of the genealogy of the tribe of Judah; 1 Chronicles 3:1-24 records the dynasty of David; 1 Chronicles 4:1-23 records the second part of the genealogy of Judah. Immediately after the twelve sons of Jacob (Israel) are mentioned, the spotlight falls on Judah (1 Chr 2:3). In order of birth, he is fourth in line, but as he is (and will be) significant in Chronicles, he is mentioned first. Judah is also foregrounded in 1 Chronicles 5:1-2 (see a later discussion in this regard). The fact that David's monarchy is put at the centre of Judah's genealogy is quite conspicuous, as is the fact that there is no mention of the Bathsheba narrative (cf. 2 Sm 11); in 1 Chronicles 3:5, even her name is changed. There it is said that Solomon's mother was called Bath-shua. The place where Shelah's genealogy is recorded is also curious. Because he was Judah's only surviving son, one would expect him to be mentioned first (in 1 Chr 2:3). However, he is mentioned last (1 Chr 4:21-23). This is because the Chronicler needed a particular family tree to fit David into Tamar few verses from 2 Samuel 3 and 5 are used. The Chronicler uses numbers to indicate each of Jesse's sons. According to this numbering, David was the seventh (1 Chr 2:15). The fact that the numbers are specifically mentioned and that, according to Samuel, in 1 Samuel 16:10-11 and 17:12-14, he was the eighth son of Jesse once again shows the emphasis that David had to be given. Because seven indicates perfection, the Chronicler manipulates the narrative, making David the seventh child (Kalimi 2005:367 also refers to this). Compared with the rest of the genealogies, the space given to David's genealogy (1 Chr 2:13-17; 3:1-9) and the rest of his family in the tribe of Judah (1 Chr 2:18-55) is quite generous.
It is worth noting that Abraham and Moses, with whom YHWH had made covenants, are not mentioned as special in the genealogy lists; they are merely mentioned in passing. In Chronicles, Moses is only mentioned in connection with the cult or religion. 7 The scant attention YHWH's covenants with Abraham and Moses received in Chronicles was apparently motivated by the emphasis on the image of David. Moreover, these two persons also represent theologies that conflict with the ideology of Chronicles. What they represent does not correlate with the ideal figure Chronicles creates in the person of David. Besides, both are associated too closely with the northern kingdom. Abraham sacrificed in Shechem and many other places, and Moses in the tabernacle throughout the wanderings in the desert, but he was never in Jerusalem.
Furthermore, Abraham's wanderings brought him into contact with numerous other peoples with whom he had dealings -a practice strongly discouraged in Chronicles. For example, he visited Ur of the Chaldeans (thus the Babylonians), Haran of the Western Semitic Amorites and the Arameans (cf. also Gn 12:6; 13:7b; 23; 12:10-20 and 20). Such conduct does not befit the ideal Judean described in Chronicles. In the Pentateuch, Abraham is described as the father of many nations, whereas in Chronicles, YHWH has only one chosen nation, namely the Judeans who worshipped in the temple in Jerusalem following the proper instructions. Likewise, the entire history of the entry into the Promised Land is ignored, as it conflicts with the perspective of Chronicles. Even in the enumeration of the descendants of Ephraim (1 Chr 7:20-29), where Joshua is mentioned by name, there is no reference to the fact that he led the people into the Promised Land. It is also said that Manasseh's descendants (1 Chr 7:29) had lived in the region from the beginning. This differs from the accounts given in Joshua and Judges.
7.Compare, inter alia, 1 Chronicles 15:15, according to which the Levites carried the ark the way Moses had commanded; in 1 Chronicles 21:29, reference is made to the tabernacle built by Moses in the desert; 1 Chronicles 22:13 says that the people will prosper if they keep the commandments given by Moses; 1 Chronicles 23:13 points out that Moses' descendants were counted among the tribe of Levi; 1 Chronicles 26:24 mentions that Shebuel, from the descendants of Moses, was chief officer in charge of the treasuries; 2 Chronicles 1:3 mentions that all the people went to the tent of meeting erected by Moses; 2 Chronicles 5:10 mentions that there was nothing more in the ark than the tables Moses put into it at Horeb; in 2 Chronicles 8:13, it says that the people had to sacrifice as commanded by Moses; 2 Chronicles 24:6, 9 emphasise the taxes as instituted by Moses; 2 Chronicles 25:4 refers to the law as the book of Moses and says that the king acted accordingly; 2 Chronicles 30:16 points out that the priests and the Levites took their posts at the Passover as commanded in the law of Moses; 2 Chronicles 33:8 asserts that the future of the people would be assured as long as they kept the law of Moses; according to 2 Chronicles 34:14, the Book of Law that was found was that of Moses, and in 2 Chronicles 35:6,12 it is pointed out that the Passover and sacrifices were brought as commanded by Moses.
The narrative about Reuben draws immediate attention.
Although Reuben was the firstborn, he committed incest, so Joseph took his place. Ultimately, Judah assumed the place of the firstborn, as one of his descendants became king (1 Chr 5:1-2). This is quite obviously an own amendment and interpretation of the author(s) of Chronicles to comment on the existing or traditional text.
1 Chronicles 5:27-6:66 lists the descendants of Levi and describes the services they rendered. The same amount of time and space is devoted to the discussion of this tribe as to all the other tribes put together. The author(s) of Chronicles wanted to set this tribe apart and accentuate it. Beentjes (2002:54) points out that in the first section (1 Chr 5:27-41), certain parts of the existing narrative (Gn 46:11; Ex 6:16-25; Nm 3:17-39, 26:57-61) are used but that they are arranged and presented differently. Levi's son Kohath is put in the spotlight. Each time, the person who rendered service is mentioned first (Kohath, Amram, Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas, etc.). In this way, a direct line of descent is created from Aaron and Eleazar up to the exile. This selection practically excludes Moses, who is mentioned only as the brother of Aaron and Miriam. It is also striking that the construction of the temple is specifically referred to, as well as the priest in office at the time (1 Chr 5:36). It is clear that the author(s) of Chronicles regarded the temple officials, especially the priests and the Levites, and the services they performed, as extremely important.
The emphasis on the temple personnel can be seen in several places. One example is that this genealogy of the priests ends with the priests serving during the time of David. In the last section of this pericope (1 Chr 6:39-66), there are distinct correlations with Joshua 21. Again, the selection and placement of the material are important. Whereas in Joshua 21:2 and 8, it is specifically stated that YHWH gave the instructions to Moses, Chronicles does not mention this (1 Chr 6:49).
1 Chronicles 8:1-40 presents the genealogy of Benjamin. At first glance, this seems odd, as a genealogy was already presented in 1 Chronicles 7:6-11. However, Chronicles needed to make a clear distinction between a part of the tribe associated with the northern kingdom and another, larger part mentioned in 1 Chronicles 8, which was evidently more important. In this pericope, the name Benjamin is the first (8:1) and the last (8:40) word. The emphasis put on this tribe strongly resembles the emphasis on the other two important tribes in Chronicles, to wit the tribes of Judah (1 Chr 2:3-4:23) and Levi (1 Chr 5:27-6:66). Like these two tribes, Benjamin's tribe is presented with an extensive list of descendants. These three tribes, therefore, are also presented in Chronicles as the ones who had remained unconditionally faithful to David and the Jerusalem temple before the exile.
Beentjes (2002:73) considers 1 Chronicles 9:1 as a closure that is theologically heavily loaded ('[D]e omvang van alle stammen, van heel Israël is nu officieel vastgelegd'), as it indicates that 'all Israel' has now been officially registered and it is beyond dispute who belongs to Israel. He points out that the phrase 'all Israel' is used here for the first time in Chronicles but again another 40 times after this instance. The term is, in fact, own material and does not occur in the sources. The statement that they 'were written in the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah' also gives it greater weight. The fact that this verse states that Judah is taken into exile and the reason for the exile (unfaithfulness) also adds weight to its content. Beentjes (2002) prefers to view 1 Chronicles 9:1-2 as a unit: . Within the section, two pericopes can be distinguished. The first is the one in which the nation is described (1 Chr 9:3-9) and in which Judah and Benjamin and their descendants are again mentioned more specifically. It is concluded with the names of the heads of families. The second is the one in which those who served in the temple are mentioned (1 Chr 9:10-34). The fact that the temple personnel are discussed in more detail can be ascribed to the emphasis placed on them and their services in Chronicles, together with the emphasis on the temple and its cult. In 1 Chronicles 9:5, there is even a mention of 'Shilonites', which may refer to Shiloh and the sanctuary located there. This is an attempt to shift the historical importance of the cult site in Shiloh to Jerusalem. The place where the tabernacle was kept (Jos 18:1), where the ark once stood (1 Sm 1-7), the city of the Levites (Jos 21:2) and the religious centre of the northern kingdom (Jdg 21:19) are 'replaced' in Chronicles by the temple in Jerusalem.

The kings of Judah
The genealogies in Chronicles are followed by narrative material. Most of this material (1 Chr 10:1 to 36:16) consists of the narrative of the kings of Judah. Their conduct and obedience to YHWH are appraised by their participation and contribution to the temple cult of Jerusalem.

Saul
It is striking that immediately after Saul has been brought onto the stage, his demise is recounted (cf. Further examples of the unfavourable light in which the Chronicler depicts Saul are the mentioning of his undignified death (that he committed suicide, 1 Chr 10:3-5) and that his corpse was left lying in the field for a few days before he was buried (1 Chr 10:8-12; cf. the narration in 2 Sm 31:1-13, according to which his corpse was hung from the wall in Beth-Shan) and that he was subsequently buried under a tree in Jabez, not in a family grave (cf. Kalimi 2005:326 for a discussion of the report about Saul's death).
A contrast between Saul and David is created by stating that David asked for help from YHWH before joining battle with the Philistines, whereas according to the account in Samuel (1 Sm 28:15), Saul, in a similar situation, invoked YHWH, but YHWH did not answer him. As this statement conflicts with the theology of Chronicles, 8 the text was amended to read that he consulted a deceased person for information instead of YHWH (Kalimi 2005:327-328). This is also suggested as the reason for his condemnation, the termination of his reign and the election of David in his place (1 Chr 10:13-14): He was unfaithful ‫ַל(‬ ‫ע‬ ָ ‫)מ‬ to YHWH. Saul's cultic transgression is not only implied using ‫ַל‬ ‫ע‬ ָ ‫מ‬ but also by the statement ‫ביהוה‬ ‫ולא-דרׁש‬ ('and he did not consult YHWH'). As following YHWH includes an interest in and involvement in the cult, it is obvious that Saul failed the cult. The contrast between him and David (who was concerned about the ark) is made very distinct in 1 Chronicles 13:3. Another negative association between Saul and the ark is the reference to his daughter Michal's discontent with David's cultic dance in front of the ark. Saul and David are contrasted more than once (Kalimi 2005:330-331). Because of Saul's unfaithfulness to the cult, he does not fit into the ideology of Chronicles and is therefore denigrated.

David
According to Chronicles, David received his kingship and reign from YHWH (1 Chr 10:14; 2 Chr 6:6). He was also the first to receive instructions from YHWH. His inauguration at Hebron by all of Israel is narrated in the beginning and again at the end of 1 Chronicles 11-12. This causes chronological irregularity. One would expect the conquest of Jerusalem to follow 1 Chronicles 12:39-41; instead, it is put immediately after 1 Chronicles 11:4-9. Only after he was anointed as the king did he conquer -as the leader of 'all Israel' -the city of Jerusalem. The narrative in 2 Samuel 5:4-5 is omitted from Chronicles. According to Samuel, David was king of Judah for seven years and six months, and after that, he reigned over the whole of Israel and Judah for another thirty-three years. According to Chronicles, he was king over 'all Israel' from the beginning. The references to David in Chronicles are not just favourable; there is a distinct preoccupation with him. Japhet (2009:292) describes Chronicles' treatment of David as follows: 'Chronicles begins its historical narrative with David; whatever 8.1 Chronicles 28:9: '[...] if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off forever' (KJV). Refer also to the article of Jonker (2010) wherein he not only discusses the differences with the Samuel text but also the theology of Chronicles and the possibility of reading it as interaction with the Persian imperial context. 2 Chronicles 15:2: '[...] The LORD is with you, while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you' (KJV).
happened before David is not recounted as history'. Besides the references to him in the narration about his reign (1 Chr 11-29) and the genealogical material (1 Chr 2:9-17; 3:1-24), the name David, ‫,דויד‬ appears in 76 other places. Kalimi (2005:167- . The reason for its inclusion is the outcome, namely the selection of the site chosen for building the temple (2 Chr 3:1). David's last days and his death are portrayed positively by the Chronicler. In 1 Chronicles 28:2, David's speech is introduced with a specific mention of the fact that he stood 'on his feet' ‫על-רגליו(‬ ‫המלך‬ ‫דוד‬ ‫.)ויקם‬ In 1 Kings 1:1, he is described as 'old and stricken in years', without strength and a weakling. He was an old man, so cold that he had to be covered with blankets. A young girl had to lie in bed with him to keep him warm and look after him. But according to Chronicles, he remains the hero he was until his death. He stands upright and gives a prayer of praise while the whole assembly praises YHWH and bows before him and David (1 Chr 29:10-20). Explicit parts of the source texts were absent in Chronicles to put David in a more favourable light.

Solomon
The narrative of Solomon presented in Samuel does not convey a sense of general approval and unity among the king's sons. On the contrary, this is a story of revolt, of how Absalom, who wanted to destroy his father, killed his brother and spread the rumour that all the king's sons had been murdered (2 Sm 13:23-38, see also The many similarities between the David and the Solomon narratives and the interwovenness of the two narratives are noticeable. Chronicles specifically states that Solomon's inauguration took place while David was still ruling Israel (1 Chr 23:1). It is also described how he ascended the throne while David was still alive (1 Chr 29:23). In the narrative about the kings after Solomon, there are three references to Solomon that link him to David (2 Chr 11:17, 33:7, 35:4). Chronicles specifically states that both kings were appointed by YHWH (cf. 1 Chr 10:13-14, 2 Chr 1:8-9; 2:11), as well as that both ruled for 40 years (1 Chr 29:27 and 2 Chr 9:30).
Solomon is therefore portrayed in the same positive light as David. As in the David narrative, Chronicles keeps quiet about the negative elements in the narrative about Solomon. Solomon's election as king is emphasised, which is also an election to build the temple. Chronicles portrays Solomon as one who is willing to give all for the temple and the cult, while other sources point out that he took foreign wives against YHWH's command (1 Ki 1:1-10) and built other shrines (1 Ki 11:6-8). Solomon's negotiations and alliances with other countries (1 Ki 9-10) are not mentioned in Chronicles either. Kalimi (2005:143-145) refers to 1 Kings 3:2, which tells how Solomon sacrificed at other shrines and argues that the Chronicler could not accept that Solomon would sacrifice at any place; even though the temple did not exist yet, it would have been contrary to the prescripts of the Torah (Lv 17:8-9). It would have been inconceivable to the Chronicler that Solomon would not have known the Torah or would not have obeyed it. The Chronicler attempts to explain this by amending the text (cf. 2 Chr 1:13a). Although there are parts of Chronicles in which more is told about Solomon himself, the greater part of the Solomon narrative deals with the building of the temple (1 Chr 3:1-7:11; 2 Chr 2:1-18). In 1 Chronicles 22:7-10 and 28:3, the difference between David and Solomon is explained: David could not build the temple because he had spilt blood in wars, whereas Solomon's capacity as a man of rest ‫מנוחה(‬ ‫)איש‬ allowed him to do it. 9 In so doing, Chronicles not only provided a reason for the unalterable historical fact that Solomon and not David built the temple but also emphasised its holiness.

Kings of Judah after Solomon
The Chronicler evaluates all the kings after Solomon against the identity of David created in Chronicles. Their burial place was determined according to their cultic faithfulness or unfaithfulness. Because of the limited scope of this article, only some of the kings will be referred to, and only information relevant to the topic will be discussed. In the narrative of the reign of Jehoshaphat, it is stated that he walked in the earlier ways of his father David (cf. also 2 Chr 17) and did not seek the Baalim ‫לבעלים(‬ ‫דרש‬ ‫ולא‬ ‫הראשנים‬ ‫אביו‬ ‫דויד‬ ‫בדרכי‬ ‫הלך‬ ‫.)כי‬ Following the Baalim is described as a practice associated with the northern kingdom (2 Chr 17:3-4). The more detailed description of Jehoshaphat's good deeds in Chronicles includes the removal of the high places and holy groves (2 Chr 17:6), as well as sending out princes, priests and Levites to instruct the people in the Torah ‫)תורה(‬ (2 Chr 17:7-9). The rewards for his faithfulness can be seen in his wealth, peace and military power (2 Chr 17:2, 5, 10-19 The versions of the story of Joash in Kings as well as Chronicles recount that Athaliah, the mother of Ahaziah, killed the royal family and that Joash was hidden in the house of YHWH by Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king (according to 2 Chr 22:11, she was also the wife of Jehoiada), and that Athaliah reigned over the country for six years. After seven years, Jehoiada, the priest, made Joash king in the sanctuary. Joash's rescue and the eventual restoration of the throne are described as cultic acts by the cultic personnel in Chronicles. The fact that he was hidden in the temple for six years contributes to his image as a king associated with the cult. The story of Joash is the same in both versions (2 Ki 11:4-12 and 2 Chr 23-24), with a difference in emphasis in 2  :16-21). The fact that these events are described in such detail is once again a technique employed by the Chronicler to highlight the sanctity of the temple and the exclusivity of the duties of the priests.
The transgressions of the cult committed by Ahaz are described in Chronicles as if they were endless. He made images, made unauthorised sacrifices and even burnt his sons ‫באׁש(‬ ‫את-בניו‬ ‫.)ויעבר‬ Chronicles emphasises the number of times other nations took the city, the number of people killed and abducted and the amount of booty taken because they had forsaken YHWH (2 Chr 28:5-8 and 17-18). According to Chronicles, the prophet Obed criticised the Israelites (the northern kingdom) because they had carried off the Judeans. He clarified that this only happened because YHWH wanted to punish the Judeans for disobedience. It is then described how the Judeans were released and assisted to return to Jericho (2 Chr 28:9-15). This addition is made because the Chronicler wants to point out that the northern kingdom had gained the upper hand over Judah, not because they were any better than the Judeans but because YHWH allowed it.
In Chronicles, Hezekiah is portrayed as a second David (2 Chr 29-32). He repaired the temple (2 Chr 29:1-11), applied the prescribed rules for cleansing it and employed the correct temple personnel, the Levites and the priests, to cleanse and sanctify it (2 Chr 29:12-19). 10 A major part of the Hezekiah narrative in Chronicles deals with his cultic activities, whereas the narrative in Kings does not have much to say about that. It is evidently an addition by the author(s) of Chronicles to underline the importance of the cult and the offices of the priests and the Levites.
Manasseh's evil deeds are compared with those of the nations expelled from Palestine to make room for Israel (2 Chr 33:2). He undid all Hezekiah's reforms (2 Chr 33:3-5, 7). Like Saul, he occupied himself with enchantments, witchcraft, divining and the summoning of spirits. He provoked and blasphemed against YHWH (2 Chr 33:3-5, 7). His punishment was that he was personally carried off in exile to Babylon. He repented and humbled himself there, after which YHWH heard his prayers and allowed him to return to Jerusalem. After his return, Manasseh embarked on a programme of cultic reforms (2 Chr 33:15-16). Nevertheless, it is stated that he was buried in his house and not with the revered kings (2 Chr 33:20), which probably indicates that Manasseh is 10.See also 2 Chronicles 29-31 for the description of the feast; the assistance the Levites gave with the sacrifices; the Passover and the thousands of offerings; as well as the fact that the people had to give the Levites and the priests their share so that they could remain true to the law. remembered more for his aberrations than his conversion (which is not mentioned in Kings). 11 Josiah is described as a reformer who did what was right in the sight of YHWH from a young age, walked in the ways of his father David (2 Chr 34:2) and sought YHWH ‫.)דרׁש(‬ He restored the cult in honour of YHWH by destroying the symbols of idolatry (2 Chr 34:3-7). He sent money to the high priest in the temple (2 Chr 34:9) and had the temple cleaned and repaired. The priest Hilkiah came across the Book of the Law when he brought out the money (2 Chr 34:10-15). The reading of the Book of Law gave Josiah new zeal to restore the covenant between YHWH and the nation (2 Chr 34:16-33). According to Kings, the idols were only destroyed once the covenant (2 Ki 23:4-24) had been restored. The money sent to the high priest is mentioned (2 Ki 22:4), but it is not mentioned that the Book of the Law was discovered when the money was taken out. Chronicles (2 Chr 35:18) also describes the celebration of Passover. In Kings, not a word is mentioned about all the thousands of sacrifices or the participation of the priests and the Levites. In Chronicles, this is an addition to the source text to underline the importance of the cult and the offices of the priests and Levites.

The exile
The exile, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the capture of the treasures are described much more briefly in Chronicles (2 Chr 36:17) than in Kings (2 Ki 25:1-30). 12 It is all mentioned in passing, so to speak, after which it is stated that the exile lasted until the establishment of the Persian kingdom (2 Chr 36:20), so that the word of Jeremiah concerning the Sabbath would be fulfilled (2 Chr 36:21). Chronicles concludes with Cyrus giving the Jews permission to return to their country, stating that he was doing this at the command of YHWH so that they could build a house for YHWH again (2 Chr 36:22-23). With this addition, the Chronicler wanted to legitimise the building of the second temple and motivate it theologically: it was a command from YHWH to Cyrus.

The result of the selective additions, omissions and emphasis
The above discussion has made it clear that the source material was used selectively and that the Chronicler had a free hand regarding additions, omissions and emphasis. In this part, these selections' effect on the text's understanding is scrutinised. The omissions, additions and emphasis are referred to only through examples where they support the argument. Different groups and matters are evaluated in Chronicles. Three tribes are particularly singled out: Judah (1 Chr 2:3-4:23), which is associated with the southern 11.In the narrative about Manasseh's life and reign, his conversion is mentioned twice (2 Chr 33:112-113 and 23), with the aim of describing his life as an example of the life of the Judeans. According to the narratives, he was forgiven after his conversion. In this way, the Chronicles narrative wanted to emphasise that Judah, which had also been carried off but repented and returned to Jerusalem and the temple, could once again claim YHWH's forgiveness and acceptance, to the extent that they were the only ones who could make that claim.
12.See also Japhet (1999Japhet ( , 2009 and Jonker (2007b) for a discussion on the exile in Chronicles.
kingdom, is portrayed as being faithful to the house of David; Levi (1 Chr 5:27-6:66), associated with the temple cult, is portrayed as being faithful to the temple; and Benjamin (1 Chr 8:1-9:1), which is also associated with the southern kingdom, is also portrayed as being faithful to the house of David. In Chronicles, these tribes are held up as the real Israel. This is obvious from how they receive special mention in the book. While the three tribes are judged positively, the northern kingdom is portrayed negatively. It is obvious that the history of only one kingdom, the southern kingdom, is narrated. The northern kingdom is referred to only where it happens to form part of the Judah narrative (see also Kalimi 2005:88-89). The points of departure underlying this attitude can be discerned in Abijah's speech (2 Chr 13:4-12), as well as in the narrative of the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 17-20). The northern kingdom represented a revolt against YHWH. Only Judah was the true kingdom of YHWH (2 Chr 13:8). The righteous in the northern kingdom who wished to seek YHWH left their houses and went to Jerusalem to sacrifice there (2 Chr 11:16, 15:9, 30:11). Japhet (2009:242) refers to research about the attitude of the author(s) of Chronicles towards the northern kingdom in Chronicles: '[T]he Chronicler saw Judah alone as legitimate heir to the monarchy of David and Solomon and therefore described only Judah'.
In the Chronicles narrative, it was very important to prove that Abraham was the direct grandfather of Israel. Israel (Jacob) is emphasised using a comprehensive genealogy of his twelve sons, starting in 1 Chronicles 2:1. Kalimi (2005:171) points out that David was emphasised using his name instead of his title; the same applies to Israel (cf. 2 Sm 24:2 with 1 Chr 21:2): the Chronicler uses the name Israel, not the name Jacob. The description by Gerleman (1984:784-786) of the development of the name Israel in the Old Testament may explain why the Chronicler substituted the name Israel for Jacob. He points out that the term 'Israel' had more than one meaning and that from an alternative for the name Jacob it developed into a reference to the Judeans in Jerusalem. In Chronicles, the name Israel is therefore used instead of Jacob, apparently because Jacob as a person is not associated with Jerusalem and the temple. The name Israel is used because it is associated with YHWH's people, Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The name Israel is already used early in the book to refer to the people of Judah, the southern kingdom. It is not used for the northern kingdom (cf., e.g. 2 Chr 10:17, 2 Chr 21:2, 2 Chr 28:27). In Chronicles, claims are legitimised. One such claim is the election of the returned Judah (Israel) to be YHWH's chosen people. In the narrative of Manasseh's reign and life, an insertion concerning his conversion occurs twice (2 Chr 33:11-13 and 23), allowing his life to be depicted as an example of the Judeans. According to the narratives, he was forgiven after his conversion. Here the Chronicler wanted to emphasise that Judah, which had also been exiled but then converted and returned to Jerusalem and the temple, could reclaim YHWH's forgiveness and acceptance -to the point that they were the only people who could make this claim. Kalimi (2005:58) points out that 'Abraham' in the source text (Ps 105:6) is replaced with 'Israel' in Chronicles (1 Chr 16:13), thus referring to Israel's descendants rather than Abraham's. Kalimi says Israel replaces Abraham because 'the seed of Abraham also includes non-Israelites -Ishmael' (Gn 25:1ff).
Apart from certain groups and matters criticised in Chronicles, the cult and the temple in Jerusalem are also legitimised. Chronicles values the temple and the cult to such an extent that the deeds of the kings who were faithful to the temple are discussed in detail, while those who were not are only mentioned in passing. Another striking phenomenon is that most of the additions to the source texts concern the cult. The services rendered by the priests are heavily emphasised, partly because the cult and the temple feature prominently, but also because, for the Chronicler, they count among the most important figures (cf., 2 Chr 8:15). According to Chronicles, the priests were the representatives of YHWH.
Their task was to guide the people by teaching and advising them (cf. 2 Chr 15:3). The Chronicler also allows only the priests to anoint kings (cf. 2 Chr 23:30 with 2 Chr 36:1). Besides the services of the priests, Chronicles also emphasises the duties of the Levites through additions and omissions. With Hezekiah's inauguration of the temple, there were too many sacrifices for the priests to handle, so the Levites had to help with the slaughtering of animals ‫ויחזקום(‬ ‫הלוים‬ ‫,אחיהם‬ 2 Chr 29:34). It is even stated that they were more sincere and more conscientious about sanctifying themselves than the priests ( ‫מהכהנים‬ ‫להתקדש‬ ‫לבב‬ ‫ישרי‬ ‫הלוים‬ ‫.)כי‬ Labahn (2003) points out that the priests always had more power than the Levites and that the Levites only performed minor tasks in the temple, a situation that changed with the second temple: By their links with the powerful in society they themselves in a way participated in the exercise of power. [...] In the positions they occupied they took on large responsibilities and could shape things the way they wanted. (p. 130) Like the other temple functions, the sacrificial rites are also emphasised in Chronicles. Large numbers of animals that were sacrificed are mentioned -sometimes innumerable (cf. 2 Chr 5:6), sometimes thousands (cf., inter alia, 2 Chr 1:6; 15:11 and 7:5). The fact that seven days were set aside for a feast to consecrate the altar (2 Chr 7:9) is an indication of the importance of sacrifices in Chronicles. The temple is even called the house of sacrifice (2 Chr 7:12).
The Chronicler clearly states which place of worship was legitimate. The northern kingdom is portrayed negatively because other places than Jerusalem and the temple were erected in the north to worship. This may indicate idolatry, but in most cases, it was simply a different place in the north set up as a place for worshipping YHWH.

Chronicles as a discourse of power
In this section, the questions originally asked regarding Chronicles as a discourse of power will be answered: who stood to benefit, who could be empowered and who would be excluded?
According to Trotter (1999), literacy gave access to texts and empowerment: This means that literary skills and the control of those with literary skills were sources of power. By effectively limiting the production and interpretation of texts to a small, literate elite, a substantial amount of power within the community is given to the literati and their patrons. (p. 305) If, therefore, some members of the Levites composed Chronicles, as it seems, then that was what they achieved. Because they were literate and in the position to rewrite history, they could empower themselves and legitimise their conduct.
It was demonstrated that the writer(s) of Chronicles used selective writing to emphasise certain aspects. These are matters such as the cult in Jerusalem as the only true religion and the temple as the only place of worship; the importance of the service of the priests and the Levites; the hyperbolic sacrifices as well as the emphasis placed on the southern kingdom and the returned Judeans as the only people of YHWH. Chronicles was written against old narratives to legitimise certain groups and practices in a new situation. It contradicts the theological perspectives of Genesis, Samuel, Kings and the prophets. This new ideology 13 is founded and legitimised theologically. 14 13.The term 'ideology' is interpreted as defined by Van Wyk (1999:24). Ideology is a set of coherent ideas about the world and specifically about society. Every ideology is attuned to serving the interests of a particular societal group by acquiring, retaining and/or increasing power and is therefore linked to politics. Ideology is expressed in language and especially in narratives.
14.Although there are points of contact between 'theology' and 'ideology', there is nevertheless a fine distinction. Van Wyk (1999:25) points out that theology and ideology have different aims: theology aims to explain the way God acts in the world, whereas every specific ideology aims to promote the power interests of a particular group in society. Van Wyk (1999:26) draws the following distinction: theology is a set of coherent ideas about the person and work of God in relation to people, whereas ideology is a set of coherent ideas about the world, society or a particular matter.
According to the source documents, the king of Jerusalem was the patron of the Jerusalem temple cult. The earlier kings of Judah had the power to decide what should happen to temple treasures, which gods should be served, whether idols should be kept or destroyed and whether heathen practices were permissible. Chronicles, on the other hand, originated when the Judean monarchy no longer existed. Judah was nothing but a province of the Persian Empire at that stage, so the power the temple and the cult could exercise was very important. The status of the patron of the cult moved from the king to the high priest. In the new dispensation, he was the head of the group which had the power to decide about the temple, its treasures, the cult's rituals, the sacrifices and all the accompanying customs. This implies that the high priest and his 'officials' were empowered when David and the kings closely associated with the cult were portrayed as the ideal. It is striking that Chronicles evaluates all kings (e.g. David and Solomon) who restored the cult in a positive light (cf., inter alia, Hezekiah and Joash, guided by the priest Jehoiada). In the main, they are described as doing three things. Firstly, they deployed the priests and the Levites in the service of the temple, as YHWH had instructed David so that the temple could be restored. Secondly, they made enormous numbers of sacrifices. Thirdly, they destroyed the idols, high places and other places of worship so that the temple would be the only place of worship (or house of sacrifice). Worship or sacrificing at any other place was denounced as idolatry or improper service of YHWH. In essence, these three aspects of the cult concern the same matter. Firstly, the priests and Levites and their services were highlighted. Secondly, this could become and remain important only if the temple in Jerusalem were the only place of worship. Thirdly, they were the only ones who stood to gain from all the sacrifices. This aspect is evident from the instructions for the sacrifices in Leviticus and Numbers (cf. Lv 2:3,6:26,7:10,22:7,22:11,27:21;[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. These aspects of the temple cult could favour nobody but the priests and the Levites. The 'new history' presented in Chronicles is nothing more than a legitimation of a new ideology serving to benefit and empower the priests and the Levites. By emphasising the temple and the importance of the priests, Levites and sacrifices, the economic welfare of the temple staff was guaranteed. The sacrifices enriched them. Not only animal sacrifices are mentioned in Chronicles; there are clear references to money as well. The numerous references to the temple's treasures and the treasuries indicate the potential economic welfare a 'temple only' philosophy (which amounts to an ideology) could generate for the temple personnel. Besides the economic benefit this ideology brought, it also gave the priests and the Levites political clout. As they were regarded as the leaders of the people, they were also, by implication, the elite who had decisionmaking powers over the daily lives of ordinary citizens.
Chronicles were not only written to counter the negative evaluation of the kings and priests but also to counter all northern traditions. This means that many events that occurred outside Jerusalem, before the entry into the Promised Land or north of Benjamin, were omitted and that the tribes of the northern kingdom that did not worship in Jerusalem were by implication not seen as part of YHWH's people (unlike the source writings, according to which YHWH led the people out of Egypt, brought them into the Promised Land and gave it to all of the twelve tribes). This also means that all characters associated with the northern kingdom (such as Abraham, Joseph, Moses, etc.) were excised through the genealogies, and by selective narration they were portrayed as unimportant compared with those of the southern kingdom. Breytenbach (1997Breytenbach ( :1180 points out that, just as kings and priests were written out of the Books of Kings and Samuel and prophets were inserted, the opposite happened in Chronicles: priests and kings were inserted, with the difference that the high priest now took the place of the king. When the Old Testament books written before Chronicles are studied, two different theological views come to the fore (cf. Breytenbach 1997Breytenbach :1172Breytenbach -1180. The first is the theology of Zion, according to which Jerusalem is the only place of worship, where kings and priests have a role to play, but the cult comes first, and Jerusalem cannot be conquered because YHWH is most closely associated with the temple. The second is the theological view represented by the prophets, in which the sovereignty of YHWH comes first, and the people would be safe if they upheld the covenant requirements. In Chronicles, an attempt is made to create a third view that contains some elements of each of these theological views but attempts to exclude their problematic aspects. The Chronicler retains an element of the Zion theology, namely that Jerusalem is the only place of worship and that if the cult of the temple and (David's) covenant are upheld, all will be well. After the exile, it was clear that Jerusalem could be conquered. So this view could not be maintained. But the idea that YHWH could only be served in Jerusalem was retained, and it formed the basis of the new 'theology', which was, in essence, a theologically legitimised ideology. The temple and the cult were highly important, but the mere presence of the temple alone could not guarantee the safety of the residents of the city. As in the prophetic writings, correct conduct was necessary, but in Chronicles, correct conduct is defined in new terms. Correct conduct meant especially obedience to the regulations of the temple personnel. The cult had to be maintained; in particular, sacrifices had to be brought to ensure salvation. These sacrifices could only be brought to the temple in Jerusalem; no other place of sacrifice would do. The catastrophe of the temple's destruction (as in the prophetic writings) resulted from cultic disobedience. But in this case, cultic disobedience was given new content. Prophets regarded 'cultic disobedience' as abandoning YHWH and worshipping the Baalim and other gods. The Chronicler, in turn, defined 'cultic disobedience' as worshipping and sacrificing at any place other than the temple. The new ideology had the same effect as the Zion theology; it constrained YHWH's sovereignty. The people's salvation was in the hands of the temple personnel. The temple personnel mediated YHWH's salvation and mercy. In this way, they exercised control over people's lives and futures. This was a theology of exclusivity that was legitimised theologically. The exclusivity contrasted with the broader theological vision of the source documents, according to which YHWH had elected the entire nation, consisting of twelve tribes. The Chronicler succeeded very well in singling out the temple elite and highlighting their importance. The book starts with genealogies which (as described above) do not follow a natural line but serve the interests of a chosen group. In this way, boundaries were set around the chosen group, and their future exclusivity was ensured. No outsider would be able to become a member of this group. People not born into the right family could not easily partake in YHWH's salvation. Naturally, restricting YHWH's presence and salvation to the temple in Jerusalem would persuade the ordinary citizen of Judah to listen to the priests and Levites, bring the regulation sacrifices and make the required contributions. In this way, the temple elite gained power over the lives of simple citizens.
In a literary process where certain people are advantaged and 'written into the text', it inevitably follows that others are excluded and therefore disadvantaged. Exclusivism does not only benefit and empower; it also always excludes and disempowers. In Chronicles, this is also the case. The Chronicler created the 'ideal' identity around the figure of David and granted the privileges associated with the temple to the temple personnel and the Judeans. Everybody outside these boundaries, whose traditions and customs did not fit in, was denied access to this privileged group. One of the groups excluded in this way consisted of those whose ancestors remained in the country during the exile. From the book of Ezra, it is clear that they used 'impure descent' to discriminate against them. The genealogies in Chronicles had, therefore, already excluded them to a large extent. However, especially groups from the region north of Benjamin were disadvantaged by the text of Chronicles. By implication, their exclusion from the 'real Israel' robbed them of their centuries-old traditions that legitimised sanctuaries such as Shechem, Shiloh and Beth-El. It also deprived them of the traditions of their ancestors, their kings and their history as a people. Based on their genealogies, they were put into the same category as the Ishmaelites and the hated Edomites (cf. the book of Obadiah).
At the beginning of this article, a 'discourse of power' was defined as a text created by a historiographer in certain circumstances to strengthen the identity of a particular group and empower it, legitimise the acts and claims of this group and simultaneously exclude other groups. 15 This investigation shows that Chronicles meets this criterion and can therefore be typified as a discourse of power for the Jerusalem temple elite.

Conclusion
The extent to which Chronicles succeeded as a discourse of power cannot be answered with absolute certainty because 15.See the contributions of Jonker (2003Jonker ( , 2009Jonker ( , 2010Jonker ( , 2011 concerning the identityfinding and/or negotiation of Israel after exile and in Chronicles.