PENc
Third, the frequency and the animals sacrificed is changed. Instead of the tedious process of sacrificing every six paces, there is only one instance at the journey’s conclusion:
“When God helped the Levites, the bearers of the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, they sacrificed seven bulls and seven rams” (1 Chr 15:26).
The animals the David sacrifices in the Chronicler’s account, along with the sacred number seven, have plenty of biblical precedents in the Bible (e.g., Ezek 45:23; 2 Chr 29:21; cf. Num 23:1, 4; Job 42:8).
Fourth, while David is “skillful in playing the lyre” in 1–2 Samuel (1 Sam 16:16–18, 23; 18:10; 19:9), in 1–2 Chronicles he is the chief architect behind the Levitical choirs, their musical instruments, and their singing of psalms (1 Chr 15:16; 16:4, 7, etc.). Most significantly, the Chronicler inserts a lengthy psalm, performed at David’s initiative (1 Chr 16:7–36). It is actually drawn from three separate psalms of three distinct literary genres (1 Chr 16:8–22 = Ps 105:1–15, which is a portion of a lengthy historical hymn; 1 Chr 16:23–33 = Ps 96:1–13, a psalm of Yahweh’s kingship; 1 Chr 16:34–36 = Ps 106:1, 47–48, which quotes the opening line of a lengthy historical corporate lament and the doxology that closes Book IV of the Psalter).
Although these psalms clearly postdate David’s generation, the Chronicler removed anachronistic references to the temple and its courts (cf. Ps 96:6, 8 and 1 Chr 16:27, 29, where “his sanctuary” is replaced with “his place” and “into his courts” is replaced with “before him”).
Given the new situation and opportunity facing the Chronicler’s audience, that is, the possibility of the return and restoration of the people of God and their temple in the land, it would do them little good simply to rehearse the narrative in Samuel-Kings merely for the sake of historical precision.
To provide his postexilic audience with guidance on obedience that leads to blessing, the Chronicler recasts David as an exemplar of Jewish piety.
Simply reiterating the patterns of human disobedience and divine punishment for the postexilic audience would offer little encouragement and guidance. Rather, he uses the familiar historical characters and events and recasts them as models of obedience to offer helpful lessons for obtaining God’s blessings. For the sake of contemporary readers, the Chronicler’s “David” does what should be done, not what David actually did. He recasts David as an exemplar of piety and patron of psalmody.
The biblical canon thus presents readers with two contrasting portrayals of David: the opportunist in 1–2 Samuel and the exemplar of Jewish piety in 1 Chronicles. In this respect, readers can hear God’s revelation in “stereo,” so to speak. If one needs guidance on godly living, than the David of 1 Chronicles would be the more helpful model. But if this were the sole portrayal in the Bible, the reader could become discouraged, as we all make mistakes and fall short. So, if one needs assurance that God forgives sinners and enables them to continue as his agents, then the David of 1–2 Samuel would be the more helpful model.
Our side-by-side comparison of the Deuteronomistic History in Samuel-Kings and the Chronicler’s history illustrates that biblical writers could use older narratives as vehicles for new theological developments. In fact, retelling familiar biblical narrative and overlaying it with later theological interpretation and contemporary application was a preferred genre in Second Temple Jewish literature, as evidenced by 1 Enoch 6–11, Jubilees, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities, Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, and the Genesis Apocryphon found at Qumran (scholars have termed this “rewritten Bible”).
The past is retold for present-day meaning, identity, and issues—thus creating a new "memory."
This technique is not unlike contemporary preaching, where the pastor attempts to apply biblical passages by using biblical characters and stories as types for modern day audiences to interpret their own experiences.
In this respect, we can understand biblical narrative as “preached history,” wherein it does indeed refer to historical events but recasts those events and their characters in order to convey contemporary meaning. The past is not told for its own sake as history; the past is retold for present-day meaning, identity, and issues. Historical narrative in the Bible is “contemporized memory” (what scholars call collective/social memory). Figures and events remain constant, but speeches, details, and sequences can be adapted to convey a new theological torah/teaching. Historical precision is secondary. Instead, the biblical characters and events are viewed as literary “types” or models that are malleable for the sake of theological and pastoral torah/instruction. The “outlines” of biblical stories are maintained and foregrounded, while the details of biblical stories can recede. What is critical in narrative torah is not the singular, particularities of history, that is, the one-time happenings of the past. Rather, the figures and events of the past are viewed as a window/type of how God and his people interact. Biblical narrative establishes continuity with the past and the traditions of the forebears, but also presents the newness that the people of God discover in their ongoing pilgrimage with Yahweh.
The Pentateuch as a “Mosaic”
Before examining what kind of a composition the Pentateuch is, it has been helpful to compare and contrast the synoptic accounts of the Old Testament, namely Samuel–Kings and 1–2 Chronicles.
The use of the phrase "to this day" in the Pentateuch implies its original audience lived in the monarchic period.
Here we can see in existing documents (apart from hypothesized sources) how a later biblical writer, the Chronicler, edited an earlier document for his own literary and theological purposes. The Chronicler’s history and the Pentateuch share the same phenomena, but the presentation is different. While the Chronicler compiles a separate scroll, in the Pentateuch each compiler’s work was woven into a single scroll.
As we approach the Pentateuch, our first question ought to be, how is it meant to be read as “teaching”? Before we pose our own theological, religious, historical or social questions, we must first ascertain an appropriate reading strategy—so that we can read it respectfully on its own terms. Anyone who has been misunderstood recognizes the importance of interpreting a text in its context. So, what is the historical and social context of the Pentateuch’s audience? From what vantage point does the author compose and shape the Pentateuch?
We can find a clue where the readership is situated in Israel’s history by examining the phrase, “to this day,” which recurs in Genesis and Deuteronomy referring to a past circumstance that still exists in the generation of the narrator. In short, “this day” points to the time period when Israel is settled in the land of Canaan, sometime between the Judges period and the Babylonian exile (1200–586 BCE). When the narrator reminds his readers in the Abraham narrative, “at that time the Canaanites were in the land” (Gen 12:6; 13:7), it is clear that they currently have no Canaanite neighbors. Two other passages of Genesis point more specifically to the monarchic period (1000-586 BCE): one presupposes the Israelite monarchy (Gen 36:31) and another the sanctuary on Mount Zion/Moriah (Gen 22:14). While the traditions underlying the Pentateuch are no doubt ancient, it was put to writing for the benefit of the Israelites living in the monarchic period.
Info Box: “ … to this day”
In Genesis the phrase points to the existence of people groups neighboring Israel (Moabites and Ammonites, Gen 19:37–38), place names (Beersheba, Gen 26:33), social customs (Gen 32:33; 47:26), and Rachel’s tomb (Gen 35:20). In Deuteronomy it refers to the Edomites (Deut 2:22), place names (Deut 3:14), the role of the Levites (including bearing the ark, which points to a date prior to the Babylonian destruction of the temple in 587 BCE, Deut 10:8), the destruction of Egyptian hegemony over the land of Canaan (Deut 11:4), and the location of Moses’ tomb (Deut 34:6).
Another question essential to our reading strategy lies in the basic literary question concerning genre. We must ask, what kind of a composition is the Pentateuch?
Should we read the Pentateuch as an authored composition or an edited one?
To answer this we must consider how it was composed. Was it authored by an individual with a coherent story line and theme? Or was it compiled by a series of authors and editors with a variety of storylines and themes? Our reading strategy must be appropriate to the kind of literature we attempt to read. The clearest approach is an empirical one. Simply put, if we attempt a close reading of the Pentateuch as a coherent composition written from a singular point of view, we will quickly become puzzled readers. This is not to say the Pentateuch is full of contradictions and therefore bad literature. It is only to say that we have assumed an improper reading strategy. But if we are open the possibility—as respectful readers should be with ancient literature—that the Pentateuch is a tapestry woven together through centuries of oral tradition, scribal documents, and editorial compilations, we may discover a grand metanarrative that is more than the sum of its parts.
Info Box: Did Moses write the Pentateuch?
Genesis–Numbers nowhere identify their author(s). They do occasionally mention that “Moses wrote” things down, but in context these verses indicate the exception, not the rule. He writes a brief verse account of Yahweh’s war with the Amalekites (Exod 17:14–16), “the Book of the Covenant” (Exod 24:3–7 referring to Exod 20:22–23:33), a second Sinai covenant (Exod 34:27–28 referring to Exod 34:10–26), and a record of the geographic locations of the wilderness journeys (Num 33:2 referring to Num 33:1–49).
The Psalms and the Prophets refer to Moses as Israel’s leader (often alongside Aaron) during the exodus period (Pss 77:20; 105:26; Isa 63:11–12; Mic 6:4), but they do not associate him with a body of legal or narrative material, let alone as author of the Pentateuch.
The Deuteronomistic History (i.e., the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings) uses several equivalent expressions to refer to “(the book of) the law of Moses” (Josh 1:7–8; 8:30–35; 23:6; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 14:6 = 2 Chr 25:4; 2 Kgs 23:25) or “the law that Moses commanded” (Josh 1:7; 22:5; 2 Kgs 21:8). It should be no surprise that the allusions in these passages echo the book of Deuteronomy in particular, not the other books of the Pentateuch. This is especially evident where there is explicit citation. Joshua 8:31 derives from Deut 27:5–6 (“… an altar of stones. You shall not wield upon them iron. With whole stones you shall build the altar of Yahweh your God”), not from Exod 20:25 (“But if an altar of stones you make for me, you shall not build them with an ashlar, or if you wield your sword upon it, you would profane it”). Both Deut 27 and Josh 8 concern the altar to be built on Mount Ebal. 2 Kings 14:6 explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 24: 16. As such, these references to passages in “the law of Moses,” or the book of Deuteronomy as we now call it, are simply that: they are references to Deuteronomic passages; their point is not to assert Mosaic authorship or copyright.
Although the book of Deuteronomy is clearly presented as Moses’ oral “words” spoken to the Israelites (in three “sermons”: Deut 1:1–5; 4:44–5:1; 29:1–2), chapter 31 is the first to mention Moses “writing” “this law” (Deut 31:9–11), that is, the “Book of the Law,” which is to be deposited beside the ark of the covenant (Deut 31:24–26). This same chapter also ascribes a song to Moses (Deut 31:19, 22 referring to Deut 32:1–43).
The postexilic books refer to “the Book” and/or “the Law” “of Moses” or “(of Yahweh) by the hand of Moses” (2 Chr 23:18; 30:16; 33:8; 34:14–15; 35:12; Ezra 3:2; 6:18; 7:6; Neh 8:1, 14–15; 10:29; 13:1–2; Dan 9:11, 13; Mal 4:4). These passages allude to verses in Deuteronomy and also to ritual texts in Leviticus and Numbers especially. 2 Chr 30:16 mentions the ritual of “throwing blood” as the prerogative of priests (Lev 1:5, 11; 3:2; 7:14; 17:6). 2 Chr 35:12 tries to reconcile the Passover ritual found in Exodus 12:8–9 and in Deuteronomy 16:7. The “as it is written” formula in Ezra 3:4–5 references Deut 12:5–6 and Num 28–29. Nehemiah 8:14–15; 10:29; 13:1–2 refer to Deuteronomy, especially Deut 23:3–5, and to Lev 23; 25 and Num 28–29. Again, these postexilic passages are simply referring to verses within these biblical books. Neither their arguments, nor their authority reside upon Moses as author.
Hence, the first time that the Old Testament even associates Moses with the writings from Exodus to Deuteronomy appears in the postexilic period—very late within the biblical tradition. The OT evidences a developing tradition regarding Moses and the Pentateuch. Within the Pentateuch itself he composes a few verses; within the Deuteronomistic history he is associated with the book of Deuteronomy; within the postexilic books he is associated with the Pentateuch.
The names of biblical books, which we take for granted, were anachronistic to biblical times, as were chapter and verse numbers. So scrolls were often identified by prominent historical figures. The Pentateuch or Torah was associated with Moses, Proverbs with Solomon, and the Psalms with David (e.g., Hebrews 4:7 uses the shorthand phrase, “in David,” to introduce a quote from Psalm 95, which is not entitled “a psalm of David” in the Hebrew OT). Even the biblical scrolls/books that we currently identify by biblical figures (e.g., Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–2 Samuel, Esther, and Job) are anonymous, as are 1–2 Kings and 1–2 Chronicles. Evidently, a scrolls/book’s authority and inclusion in the sacred canon were not tied to its supposed authorship.
Mark 1:2–3 illustrates how the NT refers to OT passages. The formula, “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,” might lead us to expect the citation comes from that biblical book and from that author. Instead, it includes a conflation of phrases drawn from Exod 23:20; Mal 3:1; Isa 40:3. The issue of authorship is beside the point. The Gospel writer likely specifies Isaiah either because the Isa 40:3 citation is the most important or because Isaiah is the book that introduces the Prophets section within the canon of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.