Abstract
The call to read Chronicles ‘midrashically’ in Leviticus Rabbah 1.3 and Ruth Rabbah 2.1 challenges the contemporary understanding of intertextuality in the early Rabbis’ interpretation of Scripture. David Stern, James Kugel, and others claim that the sages considered each word of the Bible to be equal, regardless of who wrote it or when. The Rabbis’ insistence, however, that Chronicles receive special treatment contradicts this assertion. This article argues that Chronicles’ late date of composition had a dual effect. On the one hand, Chronicles’ lateness reduced its authority and led the Rabbis to give greater weight to the words of the Primary History in their intertextual readings. On the other hand, Chronicles’ retelling of the past provided a biblical warrant for the Rabbis’ own reshaping of tradition.
Keywords
1. Introduction
In Lev. R. 1.3 and Ruth R. 2.1, R. Simon and R. Hama assert, ‘Chronicles was given only to be interpreted midrashically’. 1 R. Simon makes a similar claim in Tractate Megillah of the Babylonian Talmud (b. Meg. 13a). Each declaration is followed by an interpretation of a verse from Chronicles that illustrates how to read the book. The sages find in every instance that individuals who appear only in Chronicles’ genealogy of Judah are really well-known figures mentioned elsewhere in Scripture. The introduction of new people into the official record of Israel based solely on Chronicles’ report is denied.
This article argues that the late date of Chronicles’ composition weakened its authority as a historical source and spurred the Rabbis’ call to read the book midrashically. Chronicles’ revision of older tradition also provided the Rabbis with an opportunity: through interpretation they could revise their community’s collective memory of the past.
2. Chronology, intertextuality, and the early Rabbis
Scholars today assert that the ancient Rabbis considered every word of Scripture to be equal. This claim is based on the rabbinic axiom that ‘there is no before or after in the Torah’. 2 In the Babylonian Talmud, R. Menasia b. Tahlifa makes this statement in Rav’s name in response to the observation that incidents in the book of Numbers occur out of sequence (b. Pes. 6b.). Contemporary students of rabbinic interpretation argue that the Torah’s disregard for chronological order gave the Rabbis grounds for bringing together disparate or ‘atomized’ biblical words or phrases to understand Scripture. The entry on rabbinic literature in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, published in 2011, states that because there is no before or after in the Torah ‘texts can be called in to highlight and explain other biblical texts, even if they are in a different book, an entirely different context, and apparently unrelated to the topic at hand’. 3
This interpretive method is commonly termed intertextuality, a key characteristic of which is to allow an unfettered interplay among texts. According to James Kugel, in rabbinic interpretation ‘any biblical text might illuminate any other’. 4 Similarly, David Stern describes the ‘midrashic habit of viewing the Bible atemporally, of explaining Scripture through Scripture, and of connecting the most disparate and seemingly unrelated verses in order to create new and overreaching nexuses of meaning ...’ 5 Finally, Daniel Boyarin asserts that, for the Rabbis, words of Scripture were ‘a repertoire of semiotic elements that can be recombined into new discourse’. 6
This description of intertextuality, however, does not accurately apply to Chronicles. The individuals who appear only in Chronicles are rarely brought in to supplement, elucidate, or correct the earlier record. The Rabbis instead consistently draw on verses from earlier books to correct and elucidate Chronicles. The sages rely on intertextuality to show that Chronicles’ new figures are people already known from earlier books. Once these figures’ ‘true’ identities have been revealed, they are allowed to fill in historical gaps. Intertextuality here is not a two-way street, but a one-way street. 7
The late date of Chronicles’ composition is likely the most important fact that determined its intertextual use. The Rabbis were certainly aware of the chronology of the canon’s composition. A baraita in the Babylonian Talmud ascribes the composition of the Pentateuch and Job to Moses, with the exception of the record of Moses’s death in the closing lines of Deuteronomy (Deut. 34.5-12); the end of Deuteronomy and the book of Joshua to Joshua; the books of Judges, Ruth, and Samuel to Samuel; the book of Psalms to David; the books of Kings and Lamentations to Jeremiah; the books of Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes to Hezekiah; the books of Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel, and Esther to the men of the Great Assembly; and the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and most of Chronicles to Ezra (b. B. Bat. 14b-15a). In this list, Chronicles is the last and latest book of the Bible.
Chronicles presents an alternative version of Israel’s past within the canon. It opens with genealogies that trace Israel’s lineage from Adam to post-exilic Yehud (1 Chron. 1-9). Next it provides a description of events that covers the reigns of David, Solomon, and the kings of Judah (1 Chron. 10-2 Chron. 36). Finally it closes with the edict of Cyrus (2 Chron. 36.22-23). Chronicles’ narrative sometimes replicates whole passages from Samuel and Kings, but its account can vary and is sometimes at odds with those books. In the retelling of Israel’s past, the author(s) of Chronicles foreground David’s kingship and the Temple cult while allowing the patriarchs and Moses to recede. Chronicles’ theological perspective is also more consistent than that of the other historical books. The fate of Judah’s rulers reflects God’s immediate responsiveness to individuals’ disposition to follow the Law. 8
The contemporary scholar Ehud Ben Zvi offers a portrait of Chronicles’ readers in the late Persian/early Hellenistic period. These readers, Zvi argues, viewed Chronicles’ inconsistencies with other books as prompts to consider the insights different versions of history could yield. 9 The literati of Persian Yehud deemphasized ‘the mimetic aspect of both memory and historiography’ as they helped shape their community’s identity. They preferred to nurture a capacious social memory in which ‘texts kept informing other texts and in which, within limits to be sure, multiple perspectives were allowed’. 10
Chronicles’ acquisition of a devoted audience in Persian Yehud attests to that community’s openness to the book’s differences from other sacred writings. Chronicles’ standing ebbed over time, however, as later communities granted more authority to the older historical books. 11 The Rabbis’ reception of Chronicles recognizes both trends by simultaneously elevating and undermining its scriptural authority. As the last book in the Bible, Chronicles’ treatment of received tradition became a model for the Rabbis’ own efforts to recast history through interpretation. 12 Its lateness, however, was also the reason the Rabbis did not accept Chronicles’ record at face value. Their reluctance to add new people to Israel’s sacred record showed that there were indeed limits to how greatly Chronicles could change the past. 13
3. The midrashic interpretation of Chronicles in Leviticus Rabbah 1.3, Ruth Rabbah 2.1-4, and b. Megillah 13a
In Leviticus Rabbah 1.3 and Ruth Rabbah 2.1, the call for the midrashic reading of Chronicles is immediately followed by an illustration of the Rabbis’ exegetical method. Their objective is to eliminate the new people introduced by Chronicles and to revise and expand aspects of the biblical tradition. In Leviticus Rabbah, they begin by interpreting an important verse from Judah’s genealogy: ‘And his wife Hayehudiyah bore Jered father of Gedor, and Heber father of Soko, and Jekuthiel father of Zanoah, and these are the sons of Bitya daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took’ (1 Chron. 4.18). 14 In all of Scripture, this is the only mention of these individuals.
In the exegesis that follows, various sages interpret the names to be well-known people who appear elsewhere in the Bible. The sons are alternative titles for Moses, each reflecting one of his praiseworthy attributes. For instance, Moses is called ‘Jered’ (ירד), which contains the root consonants for the verb ‘to descend’ (ירד), because he ‘brought down’ the Torah to earth. Hayehudiyah (היהדיה), which may be translated as ‘the Jewess’, is an epithet for Moses’s mother Jochebed (Num. 26.59) who brought Jews into the world. Bitya (בתיה) is identified as the daughter of Pharaoh who discovered Moses in the basket on the banks of the Nile (Exod. 2.5-10). Her name is actually ‘Bat-Ya’ (יה בת) or Daughter of God because, just as she adopted Moses, so did God adopt her. The verse therefore means that Moses had in essence two mothers: the woman who bore him and the woman who saved him. 15 As for Mered, his name is really Caleb, who married Pharaoh’s daughter.
In Tractate Megillah, this verse also occasions a blanket assertion that Chronicles’ facts are not to be taken literally. Addressing Chronicles directly, R. Simon says, ‘All your words are one, and we know how to interpret them midrashically’ 16 (b. Meg. 13a)—which is another way of saying that Chronicles is replete with euphemisms demanding exposition. The Rabbis then interpret 1 Chron. 4.18 and come to almost the same conclusions as the sages of Leviticus Rabbah. The sons’ names are really attributes of Moses, and Mered is another name for Caleb. Hayehudiyah, however, is understood to be another name for Bitya rather than Jochebed. According to R. Yohanan, Pharaoh’s daughter is called ‘the Jewess’ because she performed the convert’s act of purification when she went down to the Nile to bathe (Exod. 2.5) (b. Meg. 13a). 17
The question arises, why did the Rabbis choose 1 Chron. 4.18 as their example for how to read Chronicles midrashically? One reason could be that the sages’ interpretation of this verse worked well with other proof texts to illuminate the significance of the opening words of Leviticus, ‘And he called to Moses’ 18 (Lev. 1.1). From the midrashic reading of 1 Chron. 4.18, Hos. 14.8, and several other verses, the sages deduce that Lev. 1.1 means God loves and honors converts. Through homilies such as this one, as Stern argues, the Rabbis strove to keep Torah relevant for Jews in the absence of the Temple cult. 19
A more certain reason that the Rabbis interpreted this verse was to purify Judah’s bloodline. Bitya, who in Chronicles is an otherwise unknown daughter of a Pharaoh, becomes the daughter of Pharaoh who saved Moses. The Rabbis did not take intermarriage lightly, with some of them arguing that a union with a non-Israelite was permissible only if the prospective spouse were a convert (cf. b. Yev. 60b, 76b-77a). 20 Intermarriage in Judah’s genealogy would have been of particular concern, given that the Messiah comes from this line. Bitya now becomes, for one Rabbi, a convert, and for the other sages, at least a person of immeasurable status.
In Ruth Rabbah, as in Leviticus Rabbah, the call to interpret Chronicles involves the issue of intermarriage. This time the problem arises in the genealogy of Judah’s son Shelah, himself the son of a Canaanite. The sages select three verses from Chronicles to illustrate how to read the book midrashically:
21
The sons of Shelah, the son of Judah: Er the father of Lecah, Laadah the father of Mareshah, and the families of the house of the linen workers at Beth-ashbea;
22
and Jokim, and the men of Cozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who married into Moab but returned to Lehem—and the matters are ancient.
23
These were the potters and dwellers among plants and hedges; they lived there with the king in his service. 1 Chron. 4.21-23
The sages offer four different interpretations of these verses. The first expounds on all three verses and relates them to the story of Rahab. The phrase ‘married into Moab’ is revocalized to mean her deeds ‘came and ascended to the Father’ (Ruth R. 2.1). 21 The second interpretation finds that verses 21 and 22 are primarily about David, while verse 23 refers to Boaz, Ruth, and Solomon. Here ‘married into Moab’ is understood to be a reference to David’s Moabite ancestry (Ruth R. 2.2). The third interpretation deals with only two of the verses. Verse 22 is about Moses and 23 is about God and souls. In this exposition, ‘married into Moab’ refers to Moses’s deeds ascending to the Father (Ruth R. 2.3). The last interpretation only discusses verse 22. It relates this verse to the story of Ruth. Here Joash and Saraph are understood to be the sons of Elimelech who ‘married into Moab’ by wedding Ruth and Orpah (Ruth R. 2.4). 22 In every interpretation, the sages deny that otherwise unknown descendants of Shelah married Moabites.
Further proof that the elimination of intermarriage is the sages’ objective is found in how they treat the six intermarriages in Judah’s genealogy. 23 Three of these unions involve couples attested elsewhere and, as expected, their names are not interpreted. 24 In another union, that of the Egyptian slave Jarha, there is no interpretation of the name even though Jarha is not attested elsewhere. Chronicles reports that Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha because Sheshan had no male heirs (1 Chron. 2.34-35). This marriage would not have been cause for concern, however, since, for the Rabbis, such a union was permissible (b. Pes. 113a). 25 The two remaining instances of intermarriage are those of Bitya and of Joash and Saraph. These names are the ones that the Rabbis chose to read midrashically.
4. The Rabbis’ midrashic interpretation of Jabez in the Talmud
In the Talmud, the Rabbis undertake an important midrashic reading of Jabez, a descendant of Judah who appears only in Chronicles. Jabez is not just named, he is also the subject of an interesting story:
9
Jabez was more honored than his brothers;
26
and his mother called his name Jabez, saying, ‘Because I gave birth in pain’.27 10Jabez called to the God of Israel: ‘Oh that you would indeed bless me and enlarge my territory and your hand would be with me and you would keep me from evil so that I not be in pain!’ And God granted what he requested. 1 Chron. 4.9-10
In tractate Temurah, a Tanna begins by declaring that Jabez in fact was really Othniel (Judg. 3.9-11), the first judge of Israel. 28 The Tanna understands Othniel’s name (which combines the root letters for ‘to respond’ [ענה] and the name of God [אל]) to mean that God answered him. Since Jabez received what he asked for, the Tanna deduces that Jabez and Othniel were one and the same. Another interlocutor, Rabbi Abbahu, asserts that Othniel restored the teachings that were forgotten during the period of mourning for Moses. Jabez’s prayer is therefore interpreted to mean that he asked for instruction in the Law and for students (b. Tem. 16a). 29
The reason why the Rabbis single out these verses about Jabez for interpretation is puzzling. It is not because of intermarriage, as there is no intermarriage to purge. Neither is it because Jabez is otherwise unattested. The sages pass over without comment the individuals listed in the verses immediately following the report on Jabez (Chelub, Shuhah, Mehir, and Eshton [1 Chron. 4.11]), even though they, too, appear only in Chronicles. Finally, there is no need for harmonization, given that the account of Jabez does not conflict with that of Othniel or of anyone else. 30
The Rabbis turn to interpretation, it seems, on the grounds that they did not think Chronicles had sufficient authority to be the sole witness to this remarkable figure. Their exegesis does not question that God would so favor a man but whether earlier Scripture would have omitted such a man from its record. The sages resolve the problem by identifying Jabez as Othniel, another descendant of Judah. They also redefine the contents of Jabez’s prayer. Rather than asking that his own needs be met, Jabez as Othniel prays for God’s revelation and for the ability to share that revelation with others. The account of Chronicles has now been changed. The sages, through interpretation, bring the current values of their community to bear on the past. For the sages, the highest good is the study of the Torah and the acquisition of disciples, not the gratification of a single individual’s self-interested desires.
5. The importance of Chronicles’ genealogies for the Rabbis
The reception of Chronicles’ genealogies in Midrash Rabbah and the Talmud reveals that the revision of sacred tradition had its limits. The Rabbis were most likely to contest Chronicles’ report when it varied from the Primary History’s record of Israel’s ancestry. Most of the names they chose to interpret came from the birthlists. The numbers indicate that the Rabbis exercised utmost vigilance over Chronicles’ genealogies in general and over Judah’s genealogy in particular. In Midrash Rabbah, the Rabbis interpret names from Chronicles in 86 instances. The vast majority (79) occurs in the genealogies and of these, most (59) appear in the genealogy of Judah. 31 In the Babylonian Talmud, the names from Chronicles that are interpreted by the Rabbis also occur primarily within the genealogies. Of the 40 instances of interpreted names, all but three come from the genealogies. Here, too, the lion’s share (30) appears in the line of Judah. 32
Not all the interpreted names from Chronicles are unattested. In Midrash Rabbah, there are 14 instances in which the sages interpret proper names of individuals from a Chronicles verse who appear elsewhere in the Bible. In almost every instance, Chronicles’ report conflicts with information found in the Primary History, and in almost every instance, the Rabbis’ interpretations make Chronicles yield to the older text. To take but one example, Chronicles identifies Saul’s grandfather as Ner (1 Chron. 8.33). In Samuel, Ner is Saul’s uncle (1 Sam. 14.50) and Saul’s grandfather is Abiel (1 Sam. 9.1). In Lev. R. 9.2, R. Simeon b. Lakish says that Chronicles’ bestowal of the name Ner (‘lamp’) on Saul’s grandfather indicates that Abiel was a lamplighter. 33
When Chronicles reports on individuals who also appear in other books, however, the sages generally accept the individuals’ identities at face value. The verse’s information is allowed to fill in historical gaps. The names David and Solomon, for example, are never interpreted. In Gen. R. 9.3, when R. Haggai quotes David’s last words to Solomon (1 Chron. 28.9) to expand on Genesis’s description of God at the time of creation, the sage understands David to be David and Solomon to be Solomon. Chronicles is allowed to gloss the older work in accordance with the generally accepted understanding of intertextuality. When Chronicles has the support of the rest of the canon, its record has the same authority as any other book.
6. The midrashic reading of Chronicles and the changing role of the Rabbis
The sages’ dictum that Chronicles was given only to be read midrashically calls attention to their transition from transmitters of biblical text to interpreters and reshapers of Scripture. 34 The language they use to reveal the ‘true’ identities of figures from Chronicles in Lev. R. 1.3 and Ruth R. 2.1-4 indicates that they considered their exegesis to be exceptional. In the Bible, there are formulas for designating a new name or a name change, which are different from the formula for deciphering dreams and heavenly visions. The Rabbis use the formula of the latter, which implies that their interpretations of names are solving mysteries that defy the understanding of ordinary men.
In Scripture, certain people receive a permanent name change. 35 For others, their new name exists alongside the old. 36 In both cases, the biblical scribes employ the verb קרא (to call) and/or the noun שם (name) to denote the change. Exceptions include Esau’s other name (Edom) (Gen. 36.8; cf. Gen. 25.30) and Esther’s other name (Hadassah) (Est. 2.7), which are designated by הוא and היא (‘it is’, masculine and feminine forms), respectively. This is also the formula generally used to denote geographical name changes: ‘Luz ... היא Beth El’ (Josh. 18.13). 37
In Lev. R. 1.3 and Ruth R. 2.1-4, however, the sages do not follow the biblical conventions for announcing new or alternative names. 38 Instead, they preface their interpretations of Chronicles’ names with זו (‘this is/means’, feminine form). (The first name is female, in both cases. 39 ) In Genesis, Joseph uses זה (‘this is/means’, masculine form) to introduce his deciphering of the cupbearer’s and the baker’s dreams after declaring that such interpretations belong to God (Gen. 40.8, 12, 18). Angelic beings employ זה, זות, and אלה (‘this is/means’, masculine and feminine forms, and ‘these are/means’) to reveal the significance of Zechariah’s visions (Zech. 1.10; 2.2, 4; 4.10, 14; 5.3, 6, 8; 6.5). 40 In light of these biblical precedents, the Rabbis’ use of זו and זה gives their interpretations an aura of divine inspiration.
The Talmud’s depiction of Chronicles may also have allowed the Rabbis to forge a link between themselves and biblical transmitters of God’s word. Going back to the baraita, it states that ‘Ezra wrote his book and the genealogies to his own’—meaning, that in addition to his own book, Ezra wrote the first part of Chronicles. 41 The baraita, however, leaves open the authorship of the remainder of the book, making Chronicles the only text with an anonymous author. 42 Given this description, it is reasonable to assume that nameless scribes picked up where Ezra left off. The effect is twofold. Ezra’s authorship of the first part of Chronicles elevates the role of the scribe, whereas the anonymous authorship of the second part of Chronicles indicates that it is not necessary to be as renowned as Ezra to be a tradent of revelation. 43 The baraita potentially laid the groundwork for the Rabbis to assume this role for themselves. 44
7. Conclusion
There may not be a ‘before’ and ‘after’ in the Torah, but in rabbinic interpretation of Scripture, there appears to have been an ‘early’ and ‘late’. Chronicles’ lateness weakened its standing as a historical book and prompted the call to read it midrashically. But its lateness also produced a benefit. Chronicles’ interpretative recasting of the Primary History opened the way for reshaping biblical tradition through midrash. Chronicles thus provided the sages with the means and opportunity to maintain Torah’s relevance for the Israel of their day.
Footnotes
1.
Lev. R. 1.3: לא ניתן ספר דברי הימים אלא לידרש, in Mordecai Margulies (ed.), Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah. A Critical Edition Based on Manuscripts and Genizah Fragments with Variants and Notes. 5 vols. (Jerusalem: Louis M. and Minnie Epstein Fund of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 1953-60), 1:ח–ז; Ruth R. 2.1: אלא להדרש לא נתן דברי הימים, in Midrash Rabbah (Vilna, 1887), 
. 3192407611 2097; view=1up;seq=6820), 2:368. In the course of my research, I have also relied on H. Freedman and Maurice Simon (eds.), The Midrash Rabbah, 5 vols. (London: Soncino, 1977).
2.
אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה. The texts that contain this axiom include Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael 15.9; Mekilta de Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai 15.9; y. Meg. 7a; y. Roš Haš. 1b; y. Šeqal. 25b; y. Sotah 37a; b. Pesaḥ. 6b; Siprei Bamidbar 64.1; Pesiq. Rab. 22.1; Ruth R. 4.5; Num. R. 9.18; and Eccl. R. 1.12. For an incisive overview of the rule, see David Daube, ‘There Is No Before and After in Scripture’, in Calum Carmichael (ed.), New Testament Judaism, vol. 2 of The Collected Works of David Daube, (Berkeley: University of California: 2000), pp. 412-14. See also Margarete Schlüter, ‘The Creative Force of a Hermeneutic Rule: The Principle “There is No Earlier and Later in the Torah” in Midrashic and Talmudic Literature’, in Rachel Elior and Peter Schäfer (eds.), Creation and Re-Creation in Jewish Thought: Festschrift in Honor of Joseph Dan on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), pp. 59-84.
3.
Lieve M. Teugels, ‘Rabbinic Literature: Hebrew Bible and Jewish Scripture’, in M.D. Coogan (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 2:241.
4.
James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), p. 17.
5.
David Stern, Midrash and Theory: Ancient Jewish Exegesis and Contemporary Literary Studies (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1996), p. 29.
6.
Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990), p. 16.
7.
Daniel Boyarin comes close to articulating this view of intertextuality in his description of the Writings in general: ‘The text of the Writings is itself understood as a mashal, that is, as a series of readings in figurative language of the text of the Torah, which provides through these figures powerful emotional and axiological realizations of the narrative situations described mimetically in the Torah itself’. 7 For Boyarin, there is a chronological element in the Rabbis’ use of intertextuality, as later books provide an interpretive key to older books. What needs to be emphasized, however, is that before the Writings may perform their hermeneutical function, they must be read ‘figuratively’. The Writings cannot decode the Torah until they themselves are decoded by the Torah.
8.
H. G. M. Williamson provides an eloquent summary of the achievement of the author(s) of Chronicles: ‘[O]verall the Chronicler shows himself as the master, not the servant, of his sources. His is the last example of Israel’s genius for retelling her sacred history in a way which applies its lessons creatively to the demands of a developing community’. H. G. M. Williamson, The New Century Bible Commentary: 1 and 2 Chronicles (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 23.
9.
Ehud Ben Zvi, History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles (London: Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006), 44-77 (66).
10.
Ehud Ben Zvi, ‘Social Memory and Identity Formation’ in Texts, Contexts and Readings in Postexilic Literature: Explorations into Historiography and Identity Negotiation in Hebrew Bible and Related Texts (ed. Louis Jonker; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), pp. 95-148 (141). See also Ehud Ben Zvi, ‘Chronicles and Samuel-Kings: Two Interacting Aspects of one Memory System in the Late Persian/Early Hellenistic Period’ in Rereading the relecture? The Question of (Post)chronistic Influence in the Latest Redactions of the Books of Samuel (ed. Uwe Becker and Hannes Bezzel; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), pp. 41-56.
11.
The author(s) of Septuagint Chronicles (LXX Chr) (second century BCE) made the book’s ending conform to that of Kings. In the Masoretic text of Kings (MT Kgs), Manasseh is the cause of Judah’s exile (2 Kgs 23.26, 24.3-4), but this is not the case in the Masoretic text of Chronicles (MT Chr). In MT Chr, the report of Judah’s exile reproduces MT Kgs’ account almost verbatim but omits several verses from the conclusion of MT Kgs connecting the Judahites’ punishment to the sins of King Manasseh. In MT Kgs, Manasseh is a wicked ruler from beginning to end, but in MT Chr, he repents and is rewarded by God. LXX Chr, however, puts the Kings verses back in (LXX 2 Chr 35:19 and LXX 2 Chr 36:5). Ralph Klein argues that the supplements were drawn from LXX Kgs (and primarily from a proto-Lucianic recension of LXX Kgs). Ralph W. Klein, 2 Chronicles: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), p. 530. Leslie Allen maintains that these verses originally augmented a (contaminated) Hebrew version of Chronicles, which then became the source of LXX Chr. Leslie C. Allen, The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint I and II Chronicles to the Massoretic Text, Part I: The Translator’s Craft. (VTSup 25; Leiden: Brill, 1974), p. 213-16. See also Gary Knoppers, I Chronicles 1-9 (2 vols.; AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 2003), 1:56. Although the source of these verses is a matter of dispute, what remains certain is that in LXX Chr, King Manasseh is responsible for the exile, just as he is in Kings.
Mika S. Pajunen’s survey of Chronicles’ reception in the late Second Temple period concludes: ‘Chronicles enjoyed a brief golden age in the early Hellenistic period shortly after it was written, but after this Chronicles was slowly eclipsed by Samuel-Kings’. Mika S. Pajunen, ‘The Saga of Judah’s Kings Continues: The Reception of Chronicles in the Late Second Temple Period’, JBL 136 (2017): 583. See also Ehud Ben Zvi, ‘The Authority of 1 and 2 Chronicles in the Second Temple Period’, JSP 3 (1988), pp. 54-88. Ben Zvi finds that Late-Second-Temple literature by and large privileges the books of Samuel and Kings over Chronicles.
12.
In David Stern’s essay for The Jewish Study Bible on ‘Midrash and Jewish Exegesis’, he writes, ‘The origins of midrash lie in biblical tradition itself where many biblical passages self-consciously look back upon earlier passages and, in one way or another, reinterpret their meaning. The book of Chron., for example, consciously recasts the history of the earlier books of Samuel and Kings, adding some episodes and omitting others, and generally spinning the earlier narrative in the course of retelling it in a politically tendentious direction amenable to its author’. David Stern, ‘Midrash and Jewish Exegesis’, in Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (eds.), The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 1880. Similarly, M. J. James suggests that Chronicles served as a model for the author of The Biblical Antiquities (c. first century CE), whose aim was ‘to supplement existing [biblical] narratives’. M. J. James, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1917), 33.
13.
Chronicles’ history is the impetus for reading the book midrashically, which is different from the impetus usually cited. Scholars have noted that works such as the Song of Songs and Psalms are natural candidates for a midrashic reading, given ‘the widespread tendency in rabbinic midrash to “historicize the non-historical”’. Quoted in Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, p. 404 and in Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, p. 113. Fishbane perceives the manifestation of this phenomenon in the rabbinic reading of the Book of Psalms and Boyarin perceives its manifestation in the rabbinic reading of the Song of Songs. The phrase is from N. N. Glatzer, Untersuchungen zur Geshichtslehre der Tannaiten (Berlin: Shocken, 1933), pp. 45-61. But unlike these other books, Chronicles is a historical work and therefore is not in need of historicization.
14.
אשר לקח מרד וישתו היהדיה ילדה את ירד אבי גדול ואת חבר אבי שוכו ואת יקותיאל אבי זנוח ואלה בני בתיה בת פרעה
15.
Cf. b. Sanh. 19b.
16.
כל דבריך אחד הם ואנו יודעין לדרושן
17.
For a thorough review of the different strands of traditions concerning Bityah, see Lorena Miralles Maciá, ‘Judaizing a Gentile Biblical Character through Fictive Biographical Reports: The Case of Bityah, Pharaoh’s Daughter, Moses’ Mother, according to Rabbinic Interpretations’, in Constanza Cordoni and Gerhard Langer (eds.), Narratology, Hermeneutics, and Midrash: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Narratives from the Late Antiquity through to Modern Times (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), pp. 145-175.
18.
ויקרא אל משה
19.
David Stern, Midrash and Theory, pp. 68-69.
20.
Christine Hayes argues that ‘the rabbis’ emphasis on moral rather than genealogical purity as the essential and defining component of Jewish identity leads them to establish a more permeable group boundary, one that tolerates penetration by “morally pure” (i.e., converted) Gentiles’. She contends that the early Rabbis’ view of ‘interethnic unions’ differed from that of Ezra, who considered genealogical purity to be the hallmark of Israelite identity. Christine E. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 145. See also Paul Heger, who affirms that, under certain conditions, intermarriage was acceptable to some early Rabbis but contests Hayes’s view that the position of these sages on the subject was in substantial conflict with that of Ezra. Paul Heger, Women in the Bible, Qumran and Early Rabbinic Literature: Their Status and Roles (Brill: Leiden, 2014), pp. 354-55.
21.
‘Ba‘alu bemo’ab is read ba’u we-‘au le’ab: “They came and went up to the Father” [in Heaven]’. L. Rabinowitz (trans.), ‘Ruth’ in The Midrash Rabbah: Volume Four, Lamentations, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Song of Songs (Soncino: London, 1977), 24 n.1. For an interesting discussion of the light shed by the first interpretation on Rahab’s appearance in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus, see Larry L. Lyke, ‘What Does Ruth Have To Do With Rahab? Midrash Ruth Rabbah and the Matthean Genealogy of Jesus’, in Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (eds.), The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSNTSup 154; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 262-84.
22.
David Stern argues that the ordering of units within a midrash may be intentional, reflecting thematic considerations. David Stern, Parables in Midrash: Narratives and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991), pp. 65-67. If the ordering of the four interpretations here is intentional, then the last interpretation’s exclusive recourse to Ruth (in a collection of midrashim devoted to Ruth) and its exclusive focus on 1 Chron. 4.22 bolsters the argument that this verse is the most important of the three up for discussion.
23.
For a discussion of intermarriage in Judah’s genealogy, see Gary N. Knoppers, ‘Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of Judah’, JBL (2001), pp. 15-30 (19-23).
24.
Judah and Bathshua (2 Chron. 2.3; Gen. 38.2); David’s marriage to Maacah (1 Chron. 3.2; 2 Sam. 2.9), and Abigail’s marriage to Jether (1 Chron. 2.17; Ithra in 2 Sam. 17.25, where he is identified as an Israelite).
25.
There is also scriptural precedent for treating one’s foreign slave as a family member. Had Abram died childless, Eliezer his foreign-born slave would have been his heir (Gen. 15.2). In light of this fact, Herbert Chanan Brichto asserts that Sheshan’s slave would have been ‘regarded as a son of the Israelite family, owning no line of his own, and therefore ideally suited to continue his master’s line’. Brichto also points out that Scripture ensures that Sheshan’s slave would have been circumcised (Gen. 17.12-13). Herbert Chanan Brichto, ‘Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife—A Biblical Complex’, Hebrew Union College Annual 44 (1973), p. 17 n.22.
26.
The niphal form of the verb כבד may be translated either ‘was honored’ or ‘was heavy’. Jabez’s mother’s claim that he caused her pain at birth would suggest that his weight was the source of her discomfort. Nonetheless, I’ve chosen to translate נכבד as ‘honored’ because it reflects the Rabbis’ reading of the text. See Exod. R. 38.5.
27.
The name Jabez (יעבץ) shares three consonants with the verb ‘to have pain’ (עצב).
28.
Some sages considered Chronicles’ Jabez to be a person in his own right. The Mekilta discusses Jabez in conjunction with the report in Judges that the descendants of Moses’s Kenite father-in-law went to live with the people of Judah (Judg. 1.16). Judah’s genealogy in chapter two of 1 Chronicles ends with the notice that the Kenites, a clan of scribes, lived in a place called Jabez (1 Chron. 2.55). The Mekilta reads the two verses together and deduces that the descendants of Moses’s father-in-law went to live with the person Jabez in order to study with him. Their arrival thus fulfills Jabez’s request for students (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Amelek 4). For the Mekilta, Jabez’s existence has support from Judges, but this is not the case for the Talmud. The Talmud also preserves the tradition that the descendants of Moses’s father-in-law are the Kenites referred to in 1 Chron. 2.55, but Jabez is understood to be a place, not a person (b. Sanh. 106a).
29.
The Rabbis’ exegesis of the tale of Jabez calls into question James Kugel’s assertion that, because of the Rabbis’ zeal for atomization, ‘[a]ncient biblical interpretation is an interpretation of verses, not stories’. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, p. 24. See also Alexander Samely, who stresses the Mishnah’s decoupling of words or phrases from ‘the biblical book, the thematic legal unit, the episode, the narrative cycle, the song, and so on’. Alexander Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 33. The sages’ discussion of Jabez is dependent on the narrative in its entirety. No words or phrases from Chronicles’ account are examined out of context.
30.
The midrashic reading of names for the purpose of harmonization is often spurred by conflicting reports. For instance, in tractate Sanhedrin, Rav ascribes the name Eglah to Michal (b. Sanh. 21a). Eglah appears in a list of David’s wives who bore him children before his move to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 3.5). There is no mention of Michal, David’s first wife whom he married when he was still in Saul’s service (1 Sam. 18.17). Rav’s interpretation prevents the omission of Michal from the list. In this instance, Rav substitutes a better-known figure for one that is lesser known, just as the sages replace the obscure Jabez with the renowned Othniel. There is a difference, however, between the harmonization of two potentially conflicting reports, resulting in substitution, and the outright rejection of information through substitution because it is unattested in the rest of the canon.
31.
The names of individuals from Chronicles that are interpreted in Midrash Rabbah are found in: Gen. R. 71.9 (1 Chron. 8.27: Jaareshiah, Elijah, Jeroham), 71.10 (1 Chron. 7.31: Birzaith), 98.15 (1 Chron. 5.10: Saul); Exod. R. 1.17 (1 Chron. 2.18-19: Azubah [two times], Jerioth, Jesher, Shobab, Ardon, Ephrath; 1 Chron. 4.5-8: Ashur, Tekoa, Helah [two times], Naarah [two times], Zereth, Zohar, Ethnan, Koz, Anub, Zobebah, Aharhel, Harum), 40.4 (1 Chron. 2.24: Ephrathah; 1 Chron. 4.1-2: Carmi, Hur, Shobal, Reaiah, Jahath; 1 Chron. 8.27: Jaareshiah, Zichri, Jeroham), 48.4 (1 Chron. 2.19: Ephrath); Lev. R. 1.3 (1 Chron. 4.18: Hajehudiah, Jered, Gedor, Heber, Soco, Jekuthiel, Zanoah, Bitya, Mered; 1 Chron. 24.6: Shemaiah, Nethanel, Zadok, Ahimelech, Abiathar), 9.1 (1 Chron. 2.6: Zimri, Ethan, Heman, Calcol, Darda), 9.2 (1 Chron. 8.33: Ner), 10.5 (1 Chron. 3.17: Assir, Shealtiel [two times]); Num. R. 4.20 (1 Chron. 26.5: Peullethai), 10.5 (1 Chron. 6.13 [Eng. 6.28]: Vashni); Ruth R. 2.1-4: (1 Chron. 4.21-23: Lecah [two times], Laadah [two times], Joash [four times], Saraph [four times], Jokim [four times], Mareshah), 4.1 (1 Chron. 8.8-9: Shaharaim [two times], Hushim, Baara, Hodesh); Song of Songs R. 2.5 (1 Chron. 26.5: Peullethai), 8.6 (1 Chron. 3.17: Assir, Shealtiel).
32.
The tractates and individuals from Chronicles who are interpreted are: b. B. Bat. 91b (1 Chron. 4.22: Joash and Saraph [each interpreted two times], Jokim), 110a (1 Chron. 26.24: Shebuel); b. Sanh. 16b (1 Chron. 27.34: Benaiah, Abiathar), 19b (1 Chron. 4.18: Mered), 37b (1 Chron. 3.17: Assir), 38a (1 Chron. 3.19: Zerubbabel), 44b (1 Chron. 2.6: Zimri); b. Meg. 13a (1 Chron. 4.18: Hajehudijah, Jered, Gedor, Heber, Soko, Jekutiel, Zanoah, Mered); b. Sotah 11b (1 Chron. 2.18: Azubah, Jerioth, Jesher, Shobar, Ardon), 12a (1 Chron. 4.5: Ashur, Tekoa, Helah (two times), Naarah; 1 Chron. 4.7: Helah, Zereth, Zohar, Ethnan); b. Hor. 11b (1 Chron. 3.15: Johanan, Shallum (two times); b. Tem. 16a (1 Chron. 4.10: Jabez); b. Ker. 5b (1 Chron. 3.15: Johanan, Zedediah). Mar Zutra claims that many more names from Chronicles should be interpreted. He comments, ‘Between “Azel” and “Azel” they were laden with four hundred camels of midrashic interpretations (דדרשא)!’ (b. Pes. 62b). Mar Zutra is referring to the list of Azel’s descendants from Saul’s genealogy, which appears near the end of chapter eight of 1 Chronicles (1 Chron. 8.38) and then reappears near the end of chapter nine (9.44). The intervening passages give the names of those who returned from the Babylonian exile, many of which are unique to Chronicles, before returning to the names in Saul’s genealogy. Mar Zutra does not offer an exegesis of these verses, however.
33.
There are five instances of the interpretation of names in Lev. R. 9.1, all of which eliminate the conflict between 1 Chron. 2.6 (in which Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Darda are the sons of Zerah) and 1 Kgs. 4.31 (in which Ethan is an Ezrahite, and Heman, Calcol, and Darda are the sons of Mahol). The midrash interprets the names in Chronicles to be other people (Ethan is Abraham, Heman is Moses, etc.). There are three instances in Lev. R. 1.3, eliminating the conflict between 1 Chron. 24.6 (which states that Abiathar’s son is Ahimelech) and 1 Sam. 22.20 (which claims that Abiathar’s father is Ahimelech). The midrash interprets the name in the Chronicles verse to be Aaron. There are two instances in Gen. R. 71.9 and two instances in Exod. R. 40.4. Here the conflict is over the ancestry of Elijah. In 1 Chron. 8.27, Elijah is the son of Jeroham, a Benjamanite, and in 1 Kgs. 17.1, Elijah is a Tishbite from Gilead. In Genesis Rabbah, one sage interprets the name Elijah in the Chronicles verse to be an attribute of God. The midrash also reports, however, that Elijah himself appeared and declared to the Rabbis that he was a Benjaminite. In Exodus Rabbah, it is Jeroham rather than Elijah who is interpreted to be an attribute of God. There is one instance in Gen. R. 98.15, which eliminates the claim in 1 Chron. 5.10 that Israel made war on the Hagrites under Saul. The Rabbis understand the battle to have taken place during the conquest of Canaan, which, according to the book of Joshua, was led by Joshua. The midrash interprets the name of Saul in the Chronicles verse to be Joshua. Finally, there is one instance in Lev. R. 9.2, which affirms that the name of Saul’s grandfather is Abiel, as stated in 1 Sam. 9.1. In Chron. 8.33, Saul’s grandfather is Ner (as discussed above).
34.
Paul Mandel in Origins of Midrash argues that the meaning of the verb darash changed as the activities of the Rabbis changed: ‘As the halakhah underwent textual redaction (as mishnah), the term midrash, originally denoting legal instruction, became identified with the exposition of law as derived (by man) from Scripture. In texts associated with the school of R. Ishmael, the terms darash and midrash retained their traditional meaning of instruction in law by the ḥakham, the word midrashot glossing the biblical ḥuqim, understood as the legal instructions imparted by the ḥakham. In time, interpretation in conjunction with a Scriptural text, that is, the derivation of law from text, became more common, in particular through the influence of the school of R. Akiva, so that, by the end of the tannaitic period, the words darash and midrash applied specifically to aspects of biblical (legal) interpretation. Ultimately, as evidenced in amoraic texts of the Palestinian Talmud and Midrash Genesis Rabbah, midrash referred to any interpretative derivation or translation, legal or non-legal, of a biblical word or passage. Thus midrash, originally a term for divine instruction as transmitted by man, became the classic term for the textual interpretation of Scripture by man, and the bet midrash became the locus for scholarly activity’. Paul D. Mandel, The Origins of Midrash: From Teaching to Text (Leiden: Brill, 2017), pp. 292-93 (italics in original). See also Azzan Yadin-Israel’s description of Rabbi Akiva’s transition from ‘mishnaic supporter of extra-scriptural traditions to post-tannaitic interpretive shaman’ in Scripture and Tradition: Rabbi Akiva and the Triumph of Midrash (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), pp. 103-157 (119). With respect to Leviticus Rabbah in particular, Burton Visotzky argues that this work marked a ‘stark shift’: ‘The radical nature of the rabbis’ departure from devotion to the Temple cult is most apparent in LR. Ostensibly a midrash on Leviticus—Torat Cohanim, it is much more a book about rabbinic practice and ideology. Virtually ignoring the details of Leviticus, LR focuses on aggadah over halachah, and on rabbanism over the workings of the priesthood. No longer content to co-opt the language of the Temple and the cult, LR works toward the replacement of the old system with the now firmly established Rabbinic Judaism’. Burton L. Visotzky, Golden Bells and Pomegranates (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), p. 4.
35.
E.g., Abram to Abraham (Gen. 17.5), Sarai to Sarah (Gen. 17.15), Jacob to Israel (Gen. 32. 29), Ben-oni to Benjamin (Gen. 35.18), and Eliakim to Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 23.34; 2 Chron. 36.4). Jacob’s renaming is exceptional. Even though Jacob is told that he will no longer be called by that name, he continues to be called Jacob (e.g., Gen. 32.30).
36.
E.g., Joseph/Zaphenath-paneah (Gen. 41.45); Gideon/Jerub-Baal (Judg. 6.32); Solomon/Jedidiah (2 Sam. 12.25); Naomi/Mara (Ruth 1.20); Daniel/Belteshazzar, Hananiah/Shadrach, Mishael/Meshach, and Azariah/Abednego (Dan. 1.7). Also included in this list is God, upon whom Hagar bestows the name El-Roi (Gen. 16.13).
37.
On the formulaic use of הוא and היא, see Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 44-48. Cf. Moses’ naming of a geographical site in Exod. 17.7, which uses the verb קרא and the noun שם.
38.
At the conclusion of his comprehensive study of biblical names, Moshe Garsiel contrasts biblical MNDs (Midrashic Name Derivations) and rabbinic MNDs: ‘The wide distribution of MNDs throughout the different types of biblical writing, and the great variation which they display, indicate that this mode of midrashic apprehension antedates that which holds sway (with regard to this topic) in the literature of the Sages and midrashic collections. At the same time, it should be noted that the MNDs found in the Sages are more extravagant and that they break the bounds even of the few rules observed by the biblical authors as to their integration in the text’. Moshe Garsiel, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns (trans. Phyllis Hackett; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1991), p. 257.
39.
Lev. R. 1.3: היהדיה זו יוכבד. Ruth R. 2.1: זו רחב. After the initial זו, the sages preface their interpretation of unattested names with זה, אלו, or ש. The one exception is Gedor in Lev. R. 1.3. The interpretation of that name is not preceded by either זה or ש.
40.
Michael Fishbane notes, ‘Despite these minor variations in structure, it is clear that the dream and visions in Zech. 1-6 share a common exegetical tradition. This also extends to the terminology used by the divine being to introduce his atomized interpretations. One may thus note the constancy of such terms as אלה and זאת (i.e., “these are/mean” or “it is/means”)—with and without specific reference to the lemma (cf. 1:10, 2:2, 4:10, 14, 5:3, 6-8, 6:5)—in all six mantological settings’. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, p. 448.
41.
עזרא כתב ספרו ויחס של דברי הימים עד לו. Trans. Louis Jacobs, Structure and Form in the Babylonian Talmud (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 33. Jacobs understands this phrase to mean that Ezra wrote ‘part of Chronicles; the rest completed by an unknown author’. Jacobs, Structure and Form in the Babylonian Talmud, p. 34. For another view, see David Talshir, ‘The References to Ezra and the Books of Chronicles in B. Bathra 15a’, VT 38 (1988), pp. 358-60 (359, 360 n.7). Talshir believes the text is corrupt and that the corrected reading indicates that Ezra authored all of Chronicles.
42.
The baraita scrupulously ascribes the last eight verses of Deuteronomy to Joshua, and the Gemara’s assertion that Nehemiah completed Chronicles highlights the baraita’s inconclusiveness (b. B. Bat. 15a).
43.
Ezra is designated as a scribe (Ezra 7.6, 11, 12, 21) upon whom rests the hand of God (Ezra 7.6, 9, 28). In the epilogue to Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Michael Fishbane notes that the description of Ezra indicates ‘prophetic inspiration’. He concludes, ‘Ezra thus uniquely combined the roles of scribe and inspired legal exegete’. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, p. 539.
44.
The debate in contemporary scholarship over the authenticity of baraitot raises the tantalizing possibility that the baraita in b. B. Bat. 14b-15a was the creation of the Rabbis themselves. Louis Jacobs presents convincing evidence that ‘occasionally the redactors [of the Babylonian Talmud] did use fictitious Baraitot for the purpose of literary device and as a pedagogical means’. Louis Jacobs, ‘Are there fictitious baraitot in the Babylonian Talmud?’, Hebrew Union College Annual 42 (1971), pp. 185-96. Elsewhere Jacobs accepts that this particular baraita is from the tannaitic period, Louis Jacobs, Structure and Form in the Babylonian Talmud, p. 32. Nothing, however, precludes the possibility that the baraita is fictitious. Many scholars contest the early provenance of a baraita such as this one, which has no parallel in extant tannaitic literature. Yehuda B. Cohn, for example, asserts that these baraitot ‘may often have been drafted in order to seem older than they really were, and there may be no good way of telling the difference’. Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World (Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2008), p. 30.