When it comes to skeptics looking for alleged Bible Contradictions, The Book (they were one book originally) of Chronicles providing an alternate account of the History of the Kingdom Period is perhaps second only to the parallel Gospel record.
I do feel there are no irreconcilable differences in terms of what the two accounts say happened. I've already talked about The Widow's Son and Jehosheba. And the Genealogy of Rehoboam's Queen in a Song of Songs post. As far as whether David used Silver or Gold to buy the land of the threshing floor, the accounts are specific in what they say, the Gold bought the land itself and the Silver everything on the land.
What my mind has been contemplating is a pretty clear thematic difference in point of view. The Gospels have different things they emphasize, but never leading to the conclusion they are trying to send a totally different message. With Chronicles it does sometimes seem that way.
We can view these as different points of view where one is less correct
then the other, without completely rejecting either as part of God's
Word. It may be God wants us to know and learn from this other POV. 2
Timothy 2:15 talks about rightly dividing the word of truth. We often talk about needing two witnesses to build doctrine, but don't fully think about the implications of when there isn't a confirming witness.
The first obvious example of this is the origin of the Samaritans.
2 Kings 17 tells us Assyria after deporting seemingly all of the Northern Kingdom settled some people from Northern Mesopotamia in their old land. The newcomers worshiped their old idols which caused problems, then Assyria gives them a Priest of Jeroboam's Priesthood who teaches them to worship Jeroboam's Idols. Later in 2 Kings 23:15 Josiah destroys the altar at Bethel which ends Idolatry in the region. But the point still remains that the Samaritans descend from foreigners.
2 Chronicles does not contain it's own version of the 2 Kings 17 narratives, it does refer to Josiah destroying idols but doesn't single out Bethel. However in chapter 30 we learn that some remnants of the northern kingdom's population were still there during the reign of Hezekiah who invited them to his Passover celebration. Some mocked the invitation, but others accepted, with people of Manasseh and Ephraim being mentioned in both groups. Now the text of 2 Chronicles isn't explicitly saying this is where the Samaritans come from, but the implication could to be they come from those who rejected it.
Now these accounts can both be perfectly true, in fact both being true fits best what the Assyrian inscriptions say, they didn't deport everyone just a lot, this policy was about mixing their population.
But the point is Kings and Chronicles choose different things to emphasize. And on this thematic disagreement, the New Testament takes a side.
When Jesus sent the 70 Disciples on their first training missionary mission, He tells them to go only to the Children of Israel and not Gentiles or Samaritans, showing he didn't count them as Israelites. Later at the true Great Commission the Samaritans are included as are the gentiles. (Ezra and Nehemiah also seem to confirm the Kings viewpoint.) And this isn't the only place where that happens. Matthew's genealogy uses the final form of the name of Salmon that Ruth uses, not Salma from 1 Chronicles 2.
One might argue Matthew not including King Manasseh among the generations skipped is an influence of Chronicles, since only Chronicles records his repentance, based on Kings alone you'd think he's the worst most irredeemable villain of the Kingdom Period. And 1 Chronicles 2 may be the only basis for putting a Recab in David's genealogy (Matthew is not saying Rahab the Harlot married Salmon, her name is Raab in New Testament texts). But that's about it for possible New Testament dependence on Chronicles, one genealogy which for at least one name is also going against Chronicles.
The only point where a New Testament author can be made to look like they're directly quoting Chronicles, is really them and Chronicles quoting the same Davidic Psalm. Of course that is true of apparent New Testament quotations of Samuel as well. And the only NT quotes of Kings is of Elijah speaking. Jesus quoted The Torah and Prophets (Acts 2 calls David a Prophet), but it can maybe be argued that the New Testament doesn't want us to take the histories in the Kingdom period books at entirely face value.
The Chronicles account is also responsible for much of the confusion about Tarshish. The only verses making it sound like Tarshish was the destination of naval adventures from the Red Sea port are in 2 Chronicles in 9:21 and 20:36-37. Their equivalent passages in 1 Kings 10:11&22 and 2 Kings 22:48 make clear that Ophir in Yemen was the destination, but the ships are called ships of Tarshish because they were modeled after Tarshish ships, possibly with cooperation from Tarshish.
This may not be entirely wrong, looking at things like how Native Americans became Indians, maybe at some point Israelites started calling this place Tarshish even though it really wasn't because that's what they called the ships they used to get there. But Jonah makes clear that Tarshish is really accessed via the the Mediterranean port at Joppa.
But this confusion has been useful for people who don't find the mainstream views of Tarshish romantic enough, wanting to make it Briton, or Atlantis, or India, or Japan, and I'd even contemplated making them the Olmecs in the past. But I've abandoned those speculations now.
What's even more interesting is Solomon. Chronicles has no equivalent to 1 Kings 11. Which is the first of a few facts suggesting it has a generally more apologetic attitude towards Solomon. And returning to the subject of the New Testament taking sides, I did a post on how the New Testament is rather dismissive of Solomon.
By leaving out the murder of Urias and including the repentance of Manasseh, Chronicles is arguably being more apologetic to all the Davidic Kings. But the moral point is David and Manasseh repented, Solomon never repented of his 1 Kings 11 sins.
1 Kings 4 tells us Solomon went to Sacrifice at the "Great High Place" at Gibeon, elsewhere Kings consistently refers to High Places as inherently bad. Many commentators on this say it shows God's mercy that he answers Solomon's prayer here in-spite of this, and I can't say I exactly disagree with that.
But when 2 Chronicles 1 records the same event, it also identifies Gibeon and calls it a High Place, but adds that this was where the Tabernacle of Moses was. Other passages in the books of Chronicles further back up the Tabernacle being here for awhile. But Samuel and Kings never place the Tabernacle at Gibeon, they don't contradict it being here at this time, and do earlier place it at Nob (in an event Jesus refers to) which is often speculated to be either close by or another name for the same place. But the tone in Kings seems to be that Solomon was in error coming here, while Chronicles wants to justify it. And Kings tells us Abiathar the priest who survived the Nob massacre lived at Anathoth, and that Abiathar later was working with Joab and Adonijah in their attempted coup, another story Chronicles leaves out.
In fact Samuel-Kings also links a Great Stone at Gibeon to Absalom and Amasa's rebellion.
Even if the physical Tabernacle built by Moses was there, it was violating the Torah itself by being on a High Place. And also the Ark wasn't here, it was brought by David to first Zion and then Jerusalem. Psalm 132 tells us David's Tabernacle was at Ephratha.
And then there is how only 2 Chronicles 3:1 applies the name of Moriah to where Ornan's threshing floor was and where Solomon's Temple was built. Again this Moriah could be not the same hill as Genesis 22:2 and still not be wrong, Solomon may have given the name of Moriah to the hill to evoke that event.
Samuel-Kings has David buy the threshing floor and place an Altar there, but lots of Altars to Yahuah were built at places not meant to house a Tabernacle or Temple, many that Abraham set up, the Altar at Ebal as well as one the Trans-Jordan tribes build in Joshua. They don't say one way or the other if David ever meant The Temple to be built there. I think Stephen in Acts 7 is implying The Tabernacle of David is where the Mishkan was meant to permanently dwell. But 1 Chronicles seems to imply David meant the Temple to be here by placing his instructions for it right after the account of buying the threshing floor. Again, even if Chronicles isn't lying, it could have recorded here a speech David actually gave at Ephratha.
I no longer believe The Church of the Holy Sepulcher marks the site of either the Crucifixion or Solomon's Temple, nor do I think those two were the same place at all. I've gone back to the Mount of Olives Crucifixion view which I'll be making another post on. And I think that's the Moriah where Isaac was offered too. And I'm also back to Solomon's Temple being where Justinian built the Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos. Which overlaps with my theorizing that The Second Temple maybe wasn't built at the same spot.
Anathoth and Gibeon I think were probably where mainstream Archeologists currently think they were (as of March 2018). But I'm much more skeptical of theories about Nob. (Wikipedia says the Ark was at Nob which is wrong and I don't even see how they got that from the Commentary they're sourcing for it.) Isaiah 10:32 leads me to conclude Nob was closer to Jerusalem then any of the places listed in the prior verses. Jerusalem didn't in Jesus time cover everything it covers now. I have a hunch I can't at all prove that maybe The Church of the Holy Sepulcher was where the Tabernacle at Nob was. I'm not gonna make a thing out of it, but it's a hunch.
Or better yet, maybe the "Old City" was the limit of Jerusalem all through the Pre-Captivity period. And the area of the modern Temple Mount, the fours quarters, the Western Hill and where Justinian built that Nea Ekklesia didn't become Jerusalem till the return from Captivity where again I think they built a lot of stuff on the wrong places. Maybe the Second Temple was build over Nob, and the Rock under the Dome of the Rock was the great Stone of Gibeon?
So in summery, they may both be Scripture, but if you encounter an issue presume Samuel-Kings to be more trustworthy till a solution is found.
Oh and I can add that only 2 Chronicles 1:4 named Jerusalem as the place to which David brought the Ark from KirjathJearim. Now again that may not be wrong, it could be using Jerusalem in a wider sense, or just skipping a step in how the Ark got to where it was at this moment. 1 Kings 3:15 does tells us the Ark was in Jerusalem when Solomon prepared to start building The Temple.
2 Samuel 15:24-25 says Zadok and the Priests brought The Ark out of "the City" and David told them to take it back to the City, but it doesn't specify which city. Latter in verse 29 it says they took it to Jerusalem, but doesn't use the word "back". So they may not have done exactly what David said. The context of verse 3 makes it sound like The Ark could have been temporarily on the Mount of Olives when this happened.
2 Samuel 15 still predates David buying the Threshing Floor, so it's NOT the same place as that. This resting place for The Ark might happen to correspond to where Bob Cornuke thinks The Temple was, in the oldest part of Jebus.
But then out of consistency with my own logic I realized only 2 Chronicles 3:1 identifies the Threshing Floor of Ornan as where The Temple was built. And thus my main argument against the Cornuke theory, (and also an argument for the Nea Ekklesia theory) is weakened by weakening the authority of Chronicles. But hey Cornuke himself thinks he's being consistent with Chronicles.
Still I'm only willing to even start to maybe second guess Chronicles if something in another book appears to maybe possibly contradict it. And nothing seems to conflict with the Threshing floor being where The Temple was built.
Update March 22nd 2018: This shall be the most controversial suggestion I've made here. You can agree with everything I argued above without needing to agree with this.
But I've been contemplating other uses of the same Hebrew word translated Threshingfloor, Goren Strong Number 1637.
1Kings 22:10 and 2 Chronicles 18:9 seem to say Samaria's Goren was by the entry gate. For Jerusalem the Entry Gate was traditionally the East Gate. The imagery in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 is of the Angel of Yahuah approaching Jerusalem but stopping here. In the past I'd tried to argue that could be west of Jerusalem, but usually Yahuah and His Angel approach and enter the Camp/Jerusalem by the East Gate. And that is part of why The Mount of Olvies is so important.
When you contemplate the purposes of a Theshingfloor, it correlates with some of what The Torah says should be done "without the camp", which becomes the Mount of Olives when viewing The Camp as Jerusalem, it's been confirmed that's where the Red Heifer was killed during the second Temple period. And that ties directly into arguing that Jesus was Crucified on the Mount of Olives or at it's foot. Also Micah 4:12 and Jeremiah 51:33 possibly eschatologically link this concept to what's said elsewhere of the Valley of Hinnom/Gehenna which I also argued is by the Mount of Olives.
The Mount of Olives is where Solomon placed his Idols of Chemosh and Moloch in 1 Kings 11, an event Chronicles ignores. Could it be that Chronicles wanted to confuse that location with the location of Solomon's Temple to Yahuah? And thus becomes an argument for applying the name of Moriah to the Mount of Olives?
But maybe 1 Chronicles 3:1 isn't even necessarily identifying the exact spot of The Temple's location. Maybe work relevant to The Temple's construction was simply done there. Maybe that's where a lot of material and smaller pieces of the building were made before being brought into the City to the proper site and put together.
No comments:
Post a Comment