Beentjes, Pancratius C. "Prophets in the Book of Chronicles." Pages 45-53 in The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character, and Anonymous Artist. Edited by Johannes C. De Moor. Leiden/Boston/Cologne: Brill, 2001.
Van Rooy, Harry V. "Prophet and Society in the Persian Period According to Chronicles." Pages 163-179 in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period. Edited by Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 175. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
In the article "Prophets in the Book of Chronicles," Beentjes' stated aim is "to find out if, and in what context, the Chronicler makes use of classical prophetic texts" by examining "one of the fourteen prophetical speeches" in Chronicles (47). His subsequent analysis, however, never seems to actually show a sustained interest in this aim and the conclusion addresses a completely different problem—that of the literary character of the prophets in Chronicles and the presence of the Chr’s "own theological convictions and accents" in their speeches (53). This incongruity in aims is characteristic of the lack of focus at various other points in the paper and makes it difficult to assess Beentjes’s contribution.
On the whole, Beentjes appears to argue that the Chr does use classical prophetic texts but selects and transforms the texts (48). Beentjes puts this argument in its sharpest relief in his presentation of parallels between Azariah’s speech and five different prophetic texts: 2 Chr 15:3 // Hos 3:4; 2 Chr 15:5 // Zech 8:10; 2 Chr 15:5 // Amos 3:9; 2 Chr 15:7 // Zeph 3:16; and 2 Chr 15:7 // Jer 31:16 (51). These parallels, though short, are compelling arguments in favour of the Chr’s use of classical prophetic texts. Japhet, I & II Chronicles, even expands the list, suggesting that, in addition to these five passages, there are also citations and allusions to Hos 5:15-6:1; Ez 38:21; Hag 2:22; Zech 11:6, 14:13-14; and Isa 9:18-20 in this text (716). Beentjes shows that none of these parallels are direct quotes, with the exception of Amos 3:9, and so, he argues, this reveals the Chr’s own distinctive use of "authoritative words from tradition" (51-52).
There is, however, nothing really substantial in making this point nor is it really surprising. Beentjes is more or less pointing out that the Chr is an author—a fact that is apparent enough and also true of every other author and text in the Hebrew Bible. Should we expect the Chr to use direct quotations from Hosea, Zechariah, Amos, Zephaniah, and Jeremiah for the direct speech of another messenger or prophet of a different name (and a different era)? I would think not. But, should we expect the Chr to draw on the language of the prophets? Of course. Furthermore, it would be a mistake to make too much of the similarities; there are, after all, limited ways to express the conventional concepts and ideas expressed by Azariah and many of the other prophets in Chronicles. The intertextuality of prophetic texts amongst themselves and also with Deuteronomy reveals the extent to which prophecy shared a common horizon of language. It is not surprising that the Chr should imitate this language in constructing the speeches of prophets; actually, one wonders if the Chr, as a member of a community that clearly studied these texts, had simply internalized the prophetic voice through constant reading and re-reading. Perhaps, the parallels are almost accidental.
In any case, Beentjes fails to provide any significant implications for this thesis; in the final analysis, he simply appeals to Schniedewind. Inexplicably, he brings in Schniedewind’s distinction of "prophets" and "messengers" in Chronicles, and, quoting Schniedewind, suggests that the Chr’s use of classical prophetic texts aimed at "inspired interpretation of authoritative text ... for the post-exilic community." Beentjes then concludes his essay with three statements that he has not proven or even really addressed in his paper: (1) the prophets of Chronicles are invented, (2) they are literary and not historical persons, and (3) the speeches are "the most appropriate place to look for the Chronicler’s own theological convictions and accents" (53). Whether right or wrong, only the third point—and then only briefly on pp. 49-50—has any basis from within the article itself. Actually, all three seem to point back to the introduction where Beentjes briefly summarizes scholarship that proceeds his own analysis. One would have expected the conclusion to make an explicit statement that the Chr used classical prophetic texts with the appropriate qualifications pertinent to his opinion on the matter as well as some sort of a statement of relevance of this point to understanding the book of Chronicles. However, this is not the case.
It is worth pointing out one more problem with the paper. The title of the paper is "Prophets in the Book of Chronicles." Yet, Beentjes only really examines one prophet, Azariah, whom he actually points out at the end of his article is not a prophet but rather an "inspired messenger" (53-54). Furthermore, Beentjes makes no attempt to link his discussion of Azariah’s speech to any of the other "fourteen prophetical speeches" or any other appearances of prophets in the book. Certainly, there is little to take from Beentjes article that would help in understanding, e.g., the role of Nathan in 1 Chronicles 17. "Azariah’s Speech in the Book of Chronicles" would have been a much more appropriate title for this paper.
In contrast to Beentjes, Van Rooy, in his article "Prophet and Society in the Persian Period According to Chronicles," provides a much more thoroughgoing and insightful overview of the phenomenon of prophets in Chronicles. Some of his insights include:
"In Chronicles an attempt is ... made to connect Levites and prophets." This is perhaps the most provocative of Van Rooy’s insights. He argues, based on passages such as 1 Chr 25:1-3, 1 Chr 25:4-6, 1 Chr 26:28, 2 Chr 20:13-23, 2 Chr 20:14-17, 2 Chr 29:25, 2 Chr 34:30 // 2 Kgs 23:3, and 2 Chr 35:15, that Levites performed prophetic functions and that many of their cultic functions "worked through prophetic inspiration" (176).
"Prophets are transformed into historians in Chronicles" (174). Van Rooy, with reference to Blenkinsopp, asserts that the references to prophetic works in regnal summaries suggests "the idea that prophets were regarded at that point as writers of historical books" (174).
"The Chronicler calls only one person a prophet in every king’s reign. Other prophetic figures receive titles such as seer" (175). This point has a bearing on our discussion of 2 Chronicles 25 where the Chr employs the terms "man of God" and "prophet." Van Rooy’s evidence confirms that the two titles are a reflection of a common Tendenz in Chronicles and differentiate the "prophet" as a different person from the "man of God" and also implies that the "prophet" was probably a position in the Chr’s view formerly associated with royal court.
"They [Prophets] were the guardians of the theocracy" (175). Van Rooy goes on to connect this role with the Chr’s doctrine of reward and punishment. The prophets, in effect, preserved the reign of God by subjecting the actions of the king to a system of reward and punishment.
Van Rooy argues that the change in the depiction of prophets from the DtrH to the ChrH reflects a change in the role of prophets in the respective communities behind the production of these texts. In addition, Van Rooy suggests that the Chr’s depiction of prophets might also stand in opposition to a movement in the Persian period that began to associate prophecy with apocalypticism.
Chronistic Prophets
![[Valid Atom]](http://anduril.ca/blog/themes/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom Feed"){kind=small}
