This hypothesis is quite attractive because it was practiced among the Hebrew authors of the Hebrew Bible. If not from those extra-biblical texts, we can say that the author did copy texts from Exodus when writing Deuteronomy. It is not a problem and it is perhaps acceptable to see the Document Source Hypothesis as valid. It would not be beyond the practices of writing for the Hebrew authors, as is evidenced with the Exodus and Deuteronomy similarities and differences.
Furthermore, if D were not true, the Document Source Hypothesis could be true if Chronicles copied Kings or vice versa, because one document relies on another in order to produce a finished product. Given the practices of the Hebrew authors, it would not be unlikely for the Document Source Hypothesis to be true, and it accounts for all of the similarities and differences.
The second theory is the Informal Oral Tradition Hypothesis. This hypothesis is fairly attractive given the practice of the Hebrews to teach in groups around fires in the towns and villages.
Narratives were one of the primary ways of teaching the children about the Lord and about their heritage. It is not unlikely, then, that the traditions of the kings who reigned as sons of David were passed on orally in an informal way such as around a group setting in the villages.
Similarly, it is not unlikely that the traditions being passed down were eventually written down. These documents of the informal oral transmissions account for all the similarities and differences between Kings and Chronicles. Of the two most probable options, it is most likely the former, not the latter, that is true, because of a few significant reasons.
One, too many significantly large sections are nearly word for word in Kings and Chronicles. It seems most likely that a source would be necessary to account with any certainty for the near identical content of the two documents. Two, more source criticism can be demonstrated throughout the Hebrew Bible than can informal oral tradition.
In other words, the authors of the Hebrew Bible often practiced copying and editing other sources to form new documents. The Informal Oral Tradition could be true, but it is not as easily or as readily demonstrated as is the Document Source Hypothesis. The weight of the evidence points to the Document Source Hypothesis. Three, Chronicles and Kings both explicitly reference other texts, and it seems that the author of these two documents may have either referred to or copied from them.
The texts that Kings refers to are the book of the annals of Solomon 1 Kgs , the book of the annals of the kings of Israel 1 Kgs and the book of the annals of the kings of Judah 1 Kgs When we add the heavy influences of all the other Hebrew sources and the textual references to additional ones, the Document Source Hypothesis stands out the most, even if Kings and Chronicles had more than one source.
This theory best accounts for all of the present evidence—the references to other sources, word for word sections, similarities, differences, and the different foci of the two documents—and is the one most or generally accepted. So what does this mean? It means that Chronicles was not merely written down by God through the hand of a man or woman.
It does not mean that Chronicles is void of the inspiration of God, but rather it means Chronicles was written as a re-working or re-telling of a particular history for a specific purpose by use of what other people had already written.
God could have inspired that process just as much as he would have inspired a single author to creatively and originally write a letter.
It also means that Chronicles could contain unbiblical portions of text; however, this possibility is not a problem or a threat, because God inspired its assembly process.
This comparison plainly reveals Chronicles and Kings, though similar and different, serve different purposes. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha.
Kenneth Barker, ed. Donald Burdick, John. The New Oxford Annotated Bible , Skip to content. Oops - Something went wrong. We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Sign up for our newsletter plus get 50 free theology eBooks in our digital library! Please check your inbox and confirm your subscription. Something went wrong. We don't share your email address with anyone, and you can unsubscribe any time. Subscribe to ReasonableTheology. The Bible. Clayton Kraby. Back to Bible Papers. Kings and Chronicles, A Comparison.
Haughwout M. From the seminar class:. Rothberg International School. Hebrew University - Jerusalem, Israel. Updated: 20 April Copyright All rights reserved - Mark S. In the bible, the books commonly called 1st and 2nd Samuel, and 1st and 2nd Kings provide a history for the monarchies in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
A second and parallel account, though slightly different is contained in the books of 1st and 2nd Chronicles. A closer examination of the differences between the two accounts may reveal several aspects about the text.
At one point 1st and 2nd Kings was contained on one scroll but was divided into two when translated to Greek, due to the greater length required by the Greek language to convey a translation of the Hebrew original. The same is true for Chronicles and Samuel. I will therefore in this paper refer to 1st and 2nd Kings as simply Kings, and likewise for Samuel and Chronicles. It is apparent that the final version of Kings was written before Chronicles for in 2nd Chronicles the book ends with the proclamation of Cyrus king of Persia allowing the Jews to return from exile to the land of Judah.
This proclamation is generally considered to have happened in c. The book of Kings on the other hand ends during the exile, after Jehoiachin king of Judah is released from prison by Evil-Merodach king of Babylon. This happens in the 37th year of his captivity and thus c. Additionally the book of Chronicles reflects a later Hebrew style than that found in Kings. The use of this phrase in these places would only make sense at a point before the Babylonian exile and in the case of , probably before BC.
So either Chronicles was partially completed before the exile or the Chronicler is directly quoting from other sources without changing them to make sense for his time period. It seems unlikely that the writer of Chronicles relied heavily upon the book of Kings as a source, for the reasons that follow. Both writers name sources within their texts that were apparently used in compiling the two accounts.
At least two or three of the sources are the same. Yet Chronicles mentions several sources not mentioned in Kings, especially the writings of various prophets. Old Testament Overviews. New Testament Overviews. Book Collections. Visual Commentaries. All Podcasts. Bible Reader. Croatian Hrvatski. Dutch Nederlands. Finnish Suomi. German Deutsch. Hungarian Magyar. Indonesian Bahasa Indonesia. Italian Italiano. Norwegian Norsk. Polish Polski. Swahili Kiswahili. Swedish Svenska.
0コメント