II Chronicles 1-36
The book of Chronicles, or Dibere Ha-Yamim (The Words of the Days), is a very interesting addition to the Old Testament. The text does not indicate an author, but according to Rabbinical tradition the author of Chronicles was the scribe Ezra who is also believed to be the author of the books Ezra/Nehemiah. The fact that the Book of Ezra begins with the final line of Chronicles also suggests that the author of Ezra/Nehemiah had access to the book of Chronicles. Based off the events that are recorded at the end of II Chronicles we know that the book was written as early as 538 B.C. because that is when Cyrus took over Babylon and sent the exiles back to Judah to rebuild the Temple of Solomon.
The early years of return were not easy ones for the returning exiles. The first seventy-five years were the hardest. The area of land they were able to control was about a fifteen mile radius around the ruined city of Jerusalem. The walls of the city were in ruins leaving little protection from raiding Bedouins or bandits. The surrounding ‘neighbors’ did not view them kindly, seeing them as interlopers and rivals politically and economically. The harvests were poor or nonexistent and there were many famines in the land in those days. To top it all off there were no resources to rebuild the Temple. The people’s morale would have been very low.
The text indicates that the author, or Chronicler, was most likely a returning exile of the priestly or Levitical tradition. The work is often considered a whitewashing of Jewish history since there is no mention of the serious moral failings of both David and Solomon. Also, there is very little mention of the northern Kingdom of Israel and even then its not a slanderous or negative view of the heathen rebellious kingdom. The Chronicler would have been speaking to the returning exiles from Babylon who would have been a mixture of the descendants from both Israel and Judah.
The point of Chronicles is not to give a straight political history of the Monarchy because the author assumes that his audience is already familiar with the events in the books of Kings and other political records and histories that were preserved in their culture. The Chronicler is taking a teleological approach to Hebrew history in the sense that he is telling the story from the perspective that there is a Divine Plan in action and when humanity lives in harmony with that Plan they prosper, but if they live in opposition to the Plan the natural outcome is destruction.
There are many differences between events in the books of Chronicles and the same historical events as told in Samuel-Kings. It is believed that the book of Kings relied on political records kept from both kingdoms, while the book of Chronicles sites sources such as prophets and seers along with official government genealogies. Another contribution to the differences is the different language styles that were used for each book. Kings would have been a more traditional Hebrew language pattern whereas the Chronicler used a lesser known Palestinian version of Hebrew that came from the Samaritans.
In the end I think that the differences between Kings and Chronicles aren’t a cause for pointing out contradiction and inconsistency in the Bible. One could definitely make that argument by giving a quick superficial glance to the text. However, I think its important to remember that the Old Testament has been around for a few thousand years and was compiled very specifically to include both the books of Kings and Chronicles despite these inconsistencies, or maybe even because of them. Each book serves as a different theological perspective of Jewish history. Kings seems to be more of a warning by focusing on the failings and division of the Hebrew people whereas Chronicles is a very positive and future based perspective that is meant to unite and inspire the descendants of the Children of Abraham.
