The purpose of this article was to highlight the importance of tradition criticism as a significant aspect of the exegetical study of any Old Testament text. Different traditions existed in ancient Israel, and the Chronicler emphasised or underemphasised some of these in 1 Chronicles 21. The above-mentioned practices highlight the theology and ideology that the Chronicler wanted to promote. The Chronicler emphasised certain traditions and underemphasised others in such a way that both the theology and ideology of the Jerusalem Temple stood out. The Jerusalem Temple represented the Chronicler’s theology and his image of God – which was that Yahweh is only to be worshipped in the Jerusalem Temple, that he has chosen the site as the place for worship and that he is dwelling there. The findings of this research caution against reading and understanding a text outside its unique historical context. This is because the Old Testament does not have a central theme or one theology.
This article contributes to the focus in HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies with regard to the notion ‘historical thought’, covering textual and hermeneutical studies as expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures. The hermeneutical method of tradition criticism is applied in this article, forming part of the scope of this journal to embrace critical textual readings.
This article aims to highlight the importance of tradition critical study as a very significant aspect of the exegetical study of any Old Testament text, with specific focus on 1 Chronicles 21. 1 Chronicles 21 has been a much-debated text, primarily because of the presence of Satan or satan and the fact that this text seems to be an amended version of 2 Samuel 24. In 1 Chronicles 21, the Chronicler redacted the text of 2 Samuel 24. He utilised his sources selectively to retell the story with his own emphasis. This article will primarily focus on the traditions that are highlighted in 1 Chronicles 21 with an overview of the traditions in the book of Chronicles, read against theology and ideology of the book.
Glassie (
Tradition can be linked to culture. Together, they can be understood to be created by human beings going through change. Also, both are created by individuals out of experience, and the reason for their actions entails change (Glassie
The change in tradition cautions against reading and understanding of any text outside its unique historical context. The change in tradition supports the notion that there is not one central theme or one theology in the Old Testament. Tradition critical study, therefore, becomes an essential tool for an exegetical study of any portion of the Old Testament, and one should always consider the different traditions the authors engaged with, to understand the theology and ideology behind the text.
Tradition critical study creates the cognisance that some Old Testament texts can be polemic against the cultural relativism of the older traditions or other texts (cf. Brueggemann
Therefore, in the application of the varying principles garnered from the study of a text, we should not focus on the culture or the controversy, rather on the relationship between God and man.
According to Boda and McConville (
The covenant tradition in Boda and McConville’s (
Boda and McConville (
The concept of the covenant comes to the forefront using the covenant formula (Boda & McConville
According to Genesis 17:10–14, as a token of the covenant, God required Abraham to circumcise every male child amongst him. This applied to every male child, whether born in his household or bought with his money from a foreigner. Any uncircumcised male amongst Abraham and his descendants who was not circumcised in the flesh will be cut off from his people because he has broken God’s covenant. Circumcision, therefore, was commonly observed as part of the Abrahamic covenant tradition.
In Exodus 6:2–6, before the establishment of the Mosaic covenant, God reminds his people (Jewish people) of the covenant he made with Abraham. In Exodus 6:7, the covenant formula is repeated, I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God. Re-emphasizing this formula demonstrates that what God desired is a relationship with the people. However, Boda and McConville (
The Mosaic covenant was a continuation of the Abrahamic covenant. There are similarities between the two covenants. Both have the appearance of the covenant formula, the land promise is prominent in both and God’s promise to Abraham is the main reason for his intervention over Israel in Egypt. The most important teaching of the Mosaic covenant is the Ten Commandments. The prominent tradition amongst the prophetic books of the Old Testament was the Mosaic covenant, and evidently, the prophets always referred back to the Ten Commandments to address the people, over keeping and breaking of the covenant (Boda & McConville
Another tradition expressed in the Old Testament is the Zion tradition, which is mostly related to the Davidic Monarchy (Boda & McConville
Grisanti (
Similarly, Grisanti (
Grisanti (
There appears to be a continuity that connects the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants. However, the ancient traditions in Israel are not limited to these three covenants. Many other traditions existed in ancient Israel. They are the exodus tradition, the Northern traditions, the temple tradition, the Southern tradition, the patriarchal tradition, the Sinai tradition, the Zion tradition and the promised land tradition, to name but a few. Some of them will be discussed further in the succeeding sections. The different traditions that existed in ancient Israel influenced the authors of the Old Testament literature. The tradition critical study not only helps to uncover the earlier stages of the book of Chronicles’ text history and development but also reveals how the forms of laws, creeds, songs, genealogies, poems, stories and other types of writing were passed on from one generation to the next orally. These transmissions of information usually happen as a way of preserving history, before the book’s final form (cf. Holladay & Hayes
Based on the information garnered under the theoretical framework above, tradition critical reading of the book of Chronicles can, therefore, be understood in this study as a method of critical examination of the concepts used to trace the developmental stages of the book of Chronicles from its historical advent to its literary presentation in the Hebrew Bible (Holladay & Hayes
Boda and McConville’s (
Geyser-Fouche (
There is an enormous amount of evidence, and this agrees with the view of many scholars
The Chronicler did not mention the Mosaic covenant, as Moses ‘was associated with Shechem (Dt 27) and a symbol of the Northern Kingdom’. The Abrahamic covenant is not mentioned either because he is associated with Mount Gerizim, which is perceived as a Samaritan location. The traditions that describe Yahweh as the Lord of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are silenced in 1 Chronicles 21, as well as in the whole book of Chronicles (Geyser-Fouche
The author of Chronicles used exclusive language to emphasise and underemphasise, as well as silence, voices to depict one specific ideology, which is the legitimisation of the Yahweh worship in the Temple of Jerusalem (cf. Geyser-Fouche
Jonker (
The Chronicler presented David’s renewed petition to Yahweh in 1 Chronicles 21:17, as a heavily adapted form of the source text in 2 Samuel 24:17. In Jonker’s view, David took responsibility for the wrongdoing of the census and, therefore, asked Yahweh to punish him and his house instead of the people. This action by David is interpreted by Jonker as a realisation that this incident has implications for Yahweh’s eternal promise to his house. Akin to Jonker’s interpretation, the Chronicler could be said to have alluded to the Davidic Covenant (Jonker
There is an allusion to what can be referred to as the significant Israelite tradition in verse 18. There is a difference from the source text in 2 Samuel 24:18, in which case the Chronicler involved the angel of the Lord as a representative of Yahweh. In this account, the angel, instead of destroying the city, commanded Gad to tell David to go up and build an altar. The three elements of the Zionist tradition became prominent in this command by the angel, and they are the city (Jerusalem), the Yahwistic religion (represented by the altar) and the monarchy (represented by David). The concept of building an altar is also a strong reference to cultic practices, which are in the Chronicle’s perspective centred at the Jerusalem temple (Jonker
A subtle difference can also be noticed in the actual transaction narrated in 21:21–25 and the source text of 2 Samuel 24:20–24. The huge price difference indicates that the Chronicler wanted to ensure that David’s conduct would come across as being without any blemish. Also, the acquiring of the threshing floor that would become a cultic site had to reflect David’s piety and reverence. Adapting to the changing tradition, the Chronicler’s contemporary audience was made to receive confirmation of the legitimacy of their cultic site (Jonker
There is another allusion to Israelite tradition by the Chronicler to reflect his theological intentions. The Chronicler reworked the source text of 2 Samuel 24:25, in 1 Chronicles 21:26–27. Here the Lord answered David with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offering. The Chronicler added the ‘fire from heaven’ to his source material. This addition by the Chronicler could be said to be an allusion to the Mosaic tradition and the Sinai tradition. In the two cases, the appearance of Yahweh was often accompanied by fire, for example, Moses at the burning bush and the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Therefore, the Chronicler recounted the events this way to emphasise the importance of what was happening at the site of the Temple. David became in this process a
1 Chronicles 21:29–30 are without parallel in the source text. The Chronicler used this addition to achieve a contrast between the sanctuary that was at Gibeon and the newly established altar on the Jebusite threshing floor (Jonker
The book of 2 Samuel, which is one of the primary sources the Chronicler depended on, belongs to the literary unit of Torah (Campbell
Examples of these passages are Joshua 1, 23; Judges 2:11–12; 1 Samuel 12:6; 1 Kings 8:14–16; and 2 Kings 17:7. These passages contain either speeches or summaries by Israeli leaders to demonstrate the continuation of their tradition history and the link between the books. Thus, they are recognised as a unit. According to Campbell, the structural divisions in the Deuteronomistic text are marked according to Noth, by Joshua 23:1; 1 Samuel 12 and 1 Kings 8:4. The unity of the Deuteronomistic text is very obvious, confirming the understanding of history as a self-contained unit. This unity is confirmed by Noth’s recognition that the key date from Exodus to 1 Kings 6:1 spanned 480 years; a figure that is explicitly given in the Deuteronomistic history (cf. Campbell
Likewise, Braun’s (
Furthermore, the Chronicler’s speeches are inserted at opportune moments and, as Braun claims, this agrees with Noth’s and von Rad’s viewpoints, supposing that the speeches are implied like the Levitical sermon current in the Chronicler’s day. Also, the Chronicler’s prophets or seers appear as spokesmen for Judah, declaring the doctrine of retribution, an outlook that was conditioned by the conceptions of his day (Braun
Knoppers (
Deuteronomistic History is a modern theoretical construct which holds that the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings constitute a single work, unified by a basic homogeneity in language, style, and content. The work covers much of Israel’s history – from the time just before Israel entered the land (Deuteronomy) to the exiles of the Northern (2 Kings 17; 722b.c.e.) and Southern Kingdoms (2 Kings 25; 586 b.c.e.). That most scholars in the second half of the twentieth century have viewed the books of Deuteronomy through 2 Kings as essentially one corpus owes much to the influence of Martin Noth’s classic study of the Deuteronomistic History, contained in his larger Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien According to Noth, the Deuteronomist incorporated the deuteronomic law into the beginning of his work, framing it with speeches by Moses. The Deuteronomist then added other sources, such as tales of conquest and settlement, prophetic narratives and speeches, official annals and records. The Deuteronomist organized these disparate materials, shaped them, and inserted his own retrospective and anticipatory comments (often in the mouths of major characters) at critical junctures in his history. (p. 1)
The Deuteronomistic history was not the compilation of an editor; rather, historical materials from highly varied traditions (some oral, whilst others may have been written) were brought together by an author and carefully arranged in a conceived plan (Campbell
The Exodus tradition was not mentioned in the narrative of 1 Chronicles 21. This narrative does not discuss the exodus from Egypt or the subsequent revelation at Mount Sinai (cf. Japhet
The Chronicler’s ideology can be understood through the different traditions he emphasised. In 1 Chronicles 21, he emphasised the Zionist tradition, David (who is seen as the founder of the Jerusalem temple), the Jerusalem temple tradition, the Southern traditions and the concepts of temple rituals highlighted by an overemphasis on ritual practices. However, he omitted or underemphasised the following traditions: Moses, the Exodus, the Sinai tradition, the Northern traditions, the Northern Kings (referring to the Northern Traditions), as well as the worship places associated with the Northern tribes, like Shechem and Bet-el.
Many traditions were emphasised by the Chronicler in 1 Chronicles 21: The Temple, Zion and Southern traditions. The Chronicler underemphasised the patriarchal, Northern, Mosaic and Sinai traditions. However, the Southern and the three elements of the Zionist tradition, the site, the Yahwistic religion and the monarchy were his main emphasis.
The Chronicler’s ideology can be understood through the different traditions he emphasised. He emphasised the Zionist tradition, David (who is seen as the founder of the Jerusalem temple), the Jerusalem temple tradition, the Southern traditions and the concepts of temple rituals. However, he omitted or underemphasised the following traditions: The patriarchal tradition (portraying Yahweh as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), the Exodus tradition (Moses), the Sinai tradition (Moses), the Northern traditions, the Northern Kings (referring to the Northern Traditions).
Therefore, what the Chronicler sought to achieve in his writing was to encourage the restoring community, his post-exilic audience, to find their identity in a multicultural environment, as God’s people and heirs of the promises of David and to legitimise the Temple as the only place of true Yahweh-worship, safeguarding the position of the temple elite.
The redaction activity found in the book of Chronicles was motivated by the Chronicler’s theological and ideological purposes. The Chronicler collected, arranged, edited and modified the traditional material and turned the composition into new material that is ideologically loaded and focused on a specific theological viewpoint. The Chronicler’s major sources amongst the biblical works are the historical compositions. He emphasised some of them in full and others in a reworked form. He did not take extensive literary excerpts from the prophetic books. He underemphasised some psalms. The Chronicler’s style is a display of a skilful balance of omission, additions and changes that transform his final work into narratives that are different from the sources and sometimes conflicting.
The Chronicler appeared to have surveyed the books of Samuel, Kings, Joshua, Genesis and other parts of Pentateuch as source material for his writing, but his picture of Israel’s history is emphatically different from that of the source material. His work is a record of the only legitimate kingdom of Judah, instead of being a synchronistic history of the two kingdoms. He used exclusive language to include the Southern kingdom and exclude the Northern kingdom. He only includes in his record the Northern kingdom in passages where the relationship between the two kingdoms is recorded and ultimately judges these relationships negatively. At the same time, he supplements his records with extra-biblical traditions. The Chronicler also borrowed from Ezra-Nehemiah, the edict of Cyrus and the list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Yet, these stories serve a different purpose in Chronicles, showing his view to be critically divergent from Ezra-Nehemiah concerning the history of Israel. The Chronicler’s theology and ideology predisposed his selection, omission and treatment of the material he borrowed from older histories, prophetic writings and perhaps other writings.
The Chronicler changed the direction of the census taking to read from Beersheba to Dan (from South to North), instead of from Dan to Beersheba (from North to South). This is an overwriting of the Northern tradition with the Southern tradition.
The answer to David’s prayer was met with fire from heaven, according to the Chronicler. This is an addition to the source text. It is suggested to be an allusion by the Chronicler to the Mosaic tradition (Moses met by fire at the burning bush) and the Sinai tradition (fire at Mount Sinai during the receiving of the Law). The Chronicler underemphasised both the Mosaic and the Sinai traditions; therefore, this could be termed as overwriting of these traditions by the Davidic tradition.
Finally, the Chronicler added the last portion of the text in 1 Chronicles 21:28–30, which is without parallel in 2 Samuel 24. These verses try to explain the reason why David could not go to the altar at Gibeon. The Chronicler may have used this to achieve a contrast between the sanctuary that was at Gibeon and the newly established altar at the Jebusite threshing floor. This links with the notion that the Chronicler replaced the Tabernacle tradition with the Temple tradition.
There is redaction activity in 1 Chronicles 21, relative to the supposed source narrative in 2 Samuel 24. 1 Chronicles 21:1 state that it was Satan who stood up against Israel and moved David to number the Israelites, whilst 2 Samuel 24:1, states that it was the anger of the Lord that was aroused against Israel and that he moved David to number his people. Some scholars believe that the insertion of the figure Satan in this verse is an attempt to extract the evil from Yahweh.
The Chronicler detached the story from its former context in two ways: firstly, he omitted the anger of God, and secondly, the incitement to number the Israelites was not attributed to God, but another agent. All English translations follow a long exegetical tradition, according to which Satan serves as a proper noun and read Satan.
The general attitude of Chronicles, however, is that evil, as well as good, originates from God. Given the different considerations, theological as well as linguistic, the conclusion is that the figure of Satan still serves as a common name and refers to an adversary.
It is striking how few are revealed about Satan and the fact that he is not mentioned in any other chapters from 1 and 2 Chronicles. He is a flat character in the narrative. The Chronicler actually created an empty image of Satan, which links with his belief that God is almighty and that no other creature or symbol can be mightier than God. He is only a pawn in the Chronicler’s narrative. His purpose was to promote the Chronicler’s theology.
It became clear that the author(s) of Chronicles replaced certain traditions with the monarchical tradition to emphasise the Jerusalem temple, which has both a theological and ideological motive behind it.
The Jerusalem Temple represented the Chronicler’s theology and his image of God – which was that Yahweh is only to be worshipped in the Jerusalem Temple and that he has chosen the site as the place for worship and dwelling. The Temple also represented the ideology of the Chronicler, because by emphasising the Temple, he succeeded in securing the temple elite’s position as the ruling officials.
In finding out that this text is theologically driven and ideologically loaded, the question arises: What impact does it have on our understanding of this text, and can it still be relevant today?
It seems that the real question here is hermeneutical. In addressing this issue, a few key concepts relating to a person’s hermeneutical options should be considered.
The Bible, and especially the Old Testament, does not contain a central theme or one theology. This makes it essential that each text should be understood and read within its unique historical framework. The tradition criticism has revealed the different theologies and ideologies that were in existence in ancient Israel. The notion of tradition history can be linked with the hermeneutical options one should consider towards making a contemporary interpretation. The diversity of the Old Testament reflects not only the reality of life as expressed by people in different times and contexts but also their testimony of the relationship between God and humans. The diversity of the Old Testament is a mirror image of the society in which we live. The Old Testament texts function side by side and not opposite to each other. It requires flexibility in thinking to interpret texts as having different purposes and therefore being relevant in different contexts.
In the Old Testament hermeneutics, the reader should be brave enough to throw off cultural ties and focus only on what matters. It requires reading the controversy and polemic in the text and not being influenced by it. The controversy and polemics in the text are directed against a particular text or culture at a particular time and can therefore not be taken as law or gospel. That is why it is important to read and understand a text within context. What matters in any text is the relationship between God and humans, and this is what the interpreter should translate into today’s context, not the culture or the controversy.
In an attempt to create a personal interpretation of how the ideologically motivated text can still be relevant for us today, the following options can be taken into consideration.
Israel was a confused nation seeking identity after the exile. An author like the Chronicler wanted to give them direction by telling them that they can find identity in their relationship with God. Although he has used the ideologically loaded symbol of the Temple, it can be translated into today’s context to a relationship with God. This entails that people who are feeling confused about their circumstances and identity, today, can find certainty in their relationship with God, regardless of how and where they worship. The flat character of Satan links with the Chronicler’s belief that God is almighty and that no other creature or symbol can be mightier than God. The notion that the whole of Israel is only the persons worshipping in Jerusalem might seem like the exclusion of persons but can be linked to how the Chronicler tried to give security to a confused nation and can also be translated in our contexts to our relationship with God, regardless of where, how and with whom we worship.
Considering the varying principles garnered from the study of a text, we should not focus on the culture or the controversy, but rather on the relationship between God and humans.
The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.
The article is an adaptation of a part of the PhD thesis of EB, prepared under the supervision of ABGF.
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.
In this article, ‘Chronicler’ will only refer to the author(s) and/or redactor(s) of 1 & 2 Chronicles. It can be noted that traditionally it was believed that Ezra and Nehemiah can also be included into the work done by this author (cf. Smith
Knoppers (
Most of these concepts are described in detail by Geyser-Fouche (