Digital Logos Edition
Among early Christian and Jewish writers, the books of Chronicles were tacitly understood as authoritative historical works. But in the Septuagint and Vulgate, these works were named “things left out,” suggesting that 1 and 2 Chronicles had only supplementary status in the canon. Jones begins his guide with an introduction, then tackles the genealogies (1 Chronicles 1–9), the united monarchy (1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 9), and the divided monarchy (2 Chronicles 10–36). He then analyzes sources and method, authorship and date, purposes of writing, and theology of the books.
Save more when you purchase this volume as part of the Sheffield/T & T Clark Bible Guides Collection (44 Vols.)!
“ Chronicler’s presentation of David extends from his enthronement to the report of his death” (Page 34)
“Williamson’s straightforward model and Dillard’s more complex one are agreed on one fundamental and” (Page 45)
“Nehemiah. As noted by Williamson (Israel), there was an unchallenged consensus for a century and a half that the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah formed a continuous, single work, which gives the history of Israel from Adam to the post-exilic resettlement in Jerusalem. In the more simplistic expression of this unity, reference has been made to a single author, ‘the Chronicler’, and to a single literary complex, ‘the Chronistic History’.” (Page 13)
“The fundamental weaknesses of this argument render it totally unacceptable: first, it obliterates the distinction between material derived from the Midrash, that derived from other sources and that composed by the Chronicler himself; secondly, the portrayal of the Chronicler as one who borrowed his material almost entirely from the Midrash contributes to his demise as an editor and author.” (Pages 66–67)
“The speech delivered by Abijah (2 Chron. 13:4–12) is so full of the Chronicler’s two favourite themes, the legitimacy of the Davidic dynasty and the purity of the Jerusalem cult, that it has been described as ‘a thinly-veiled comment by the author in explanation of the theological reasons for the ensuing course of events’” (Page 60)