Yigal Levin
The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah. 2 Chronicles 10-36. New Translation and Commentary
London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Pp. xv + 517. $148.00. ISBN 978-0-567-67171-4
Ralph W. Klein
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Levin plans three volumes in his commentary on the books of Chronicles: this volume under review covers the reigns of Rehoboam until the exile; a second volume, 1 Chronicles 10-2 Chronicles 9, will deal with the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon, and a third volume will treat the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1-9. Introductory questions will be addressed in the final volume so Levin does not address here questions of ideology/theology, the date of Chronicles, the Chronicler’s use of sources, or the debate about whether Chronicles is part of the so-called Chronicler’s History (Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah). From time to time in this volume Levin refers to items that will be discussed in volumes 1 and 2 (e.g. in 2 Chr 11:14 Levites left their pasture lands, with a cross reference to his commentary on the Levitical cities in vol 1, without disclosing how he will interpret the historicity of that list. In discussing the size of Jehoshaphat’s army he notes that according to 1 Chr 21: 5 David had 1,100,000 men who drew the sword from Israel and another 470,000 from Judah without indicating how he understands those numbers. 470,000, for example is usually understood as a later correction.
Levin promises a translation of the Hebrew text into modern English although there is no attempt to use gender inclusive language. He mentions that he checked his translation with the translations in the commentaries by Myers, Dillard, and Klein. He records variant readings from the versions in his copious notes to the translation, but makes no recommendation on which of these variants, if any, should be adopted. He invites readers to make their own choices. Of course a commentator on those books should be much better equipped to make such choices. Levin concludes, p. xi: “We avoided, as far as possible, incorporating emendations of the MT in the translation itself.” This is in considerable tension with the understanding of the MT in the works of Eugene Ulrich and Emanuel Tov. He does not include “quote marks” in his translation, p. xiii, but of course quotation marks are expected in modern English. In its narrative Chronicles includes countless sentences that begin with waw consecutives, and these are always translated by Levin with the conjunction “and.” He does not use words like but, so, thus, etc. as transitional particles, leaving the reader to discern the appropriate transition between sentences. Again a commentator should be well prepared to choose among these variant possibilities, and in my judgment beginning almost every sentence with “and” is not modern English.
Levin includes more than 500 items in his bibliography, and cites clearly suggestions from many of these publications. A notable omission is the synopsis by Primus Vannutelli, which provides easy comparisons of the Hebrew text and Septuagint translations of 1 and 2 Chronicles and their use of the Vorlage in Samuel and Kings.
Translation and textual criticism issues
Closer attention to the Lucianic text of Kings would have been helpful in understanding how the text of Chronicles developed. The MT of 2 Chr 25:4 mentions “and their sons,” which Levin understands to be haplographic for “and the sons of the murderers” in 2 Kgs 14:6, but the Lucianic text of Kings, reflecting the proto-Lucianic recension, already attests that shorter reading. In the same verse Chronicles reads “die” on three occasions whereas Kings MT has “put to death.” But that change from the passive Hophal to the active Qal is already known from Kings LXX. The Chronicler also reports that Jehoash the king of Israel arrested Amaziah the king of Judah and brought him to Jerusalem (2 Chr 25:23) whereas 2 Kgs 14:13 MT reads “he came” or “they came” to Jerusalem The Chronicler’s text is dependent on the Hebrew text behind the Lucianic reading in Kings.
Levin’s loyalty to an uncorrected MT leads to the following translation of 2 Chr 20:25: “And Jehoshaphat and his people came to take their plunder, and they found on them a great amount, goods, corpses….” A better translation would be “they found cattle in great abundance, and goods, garments….” “On them” translates bhm in MT, a misreading of an original bhmh, as Chr LXX also attests. No one plunders corpses, and Klein and Dillard are probably correct that we should read bgdym “garments” instead of pgrym “corpses.” Levin translates the corrupt MT.
Levin translates 2 Chr 34:6 as an obscure sentence fragment, not connected to v. 5: “And in the towns of Manasseh and Ephraim and Simeon and as far as Naphtali, in their ruins around.” He notes, but does not follow, the brilliant emendation of Seeligmann, which would lead to the translation: “And in the cities of Manasseh, Ephraim, and Simeon, and as far as Naphtali, he removed their temples all around.”
In 2 Chr 10:18//1 Kgs 12:18 Levin favors a translation “Rehoboam arduously mounted his chariot” instead of “Rehoboam made haste to enter his chariot” to flee to Jerusalem, noting a comment in the midrashim that Rehoboam had been stricken with gonorrhea, making it difficult for him to mount his chariot. That information about Rehoboam’s venereal disease is of doubtful historicity and probably to be dated long after the Chronicler wrote. Chr LXX understood the Hebrew verb to mean “hastened.”
In 2 Chr 17:3 Levin translates “because he [Jehoshaphat] walked in the earlier ways of his father David” even though David’s reign in Chronicles is not divided into an earlier faithful era, followed by a later faithless era, and, of course, David was not Jehoshaphat’s father. Asa was Jehoshaphat’s father, and his reign is divided into an earlier positive period and a later faithless period. Levin notes that “David” is missing from the Greek A and B “recensions,” by which he apparently means the Septuagint manuscripts Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, but he notes that the name David is retained in the L recension, again a wrong use of the word recension. He means the Lucianic manuscripts of Chronicles, which generally follow the MT. Levin admits that “the earlier ways of Jehoshaphat’s father David makes no sense, however, he does not think that is the only possible explanation and sees no compelling reason to amend (emend?) the MT.
Levin concludes correctly that the skin disease of Uzziah in 2 Chr 26:19 was not Hansen’s disease, but then includes “leprosy” in his translation “following common practice.” Why not follow his own correct lexicographical argument?
Historical Questions
In his discussion of many historical questions Levin often declines to make decisions or sidesteps the historical problem.
On the list of Rehoboam’s cities of defense (2 Chr 11:5-12, which he translates “cities for siege” (what does that mean?), Levin comments that we do not have enough archaeological data to comment on the historicity of the list. While no sure date can be assigned to this list, many scholars believe it was in fact a preexilic list of fortresses in Judah that was incorporated by the Chronicler into the reign of Rehoboam to show by this building project that Rehoboam was under Yahweh’s blessing.
On the invasion of Shishak, Levin remarks that the Chronicler must have used some ancient source that he had as his disposal while exaggerating the numbers, indicating that Shishak’s attack on the fortified cities of Judah (v. 4) is an obvious allusion to the cities fortified by Rehoboam whose historicity he had passed on. Did Shishak actually come to Jerusalem?
On Jehoshaphat’s judicial reform in 2 Chronicles 19, Levin quotes Gary N. Knoppers, who attempted to show from the language and the ideology of the Chronicler’s account of Jehoshaphat’s reforms that they reflected the Chronicler’s own view on what Judah’s judiciary should have looked like, more than any real knowledge of what they actually looked like. But Levin remarks: “even assuming our narrative to be a more-or-less accurate depiction of Jehoshaphat’s actions,” and Levin adds this puzzling sentence: “ In any case, historical or not, was the Chronicler attempting to depict Jeroboam as obeying the law of Deuteronomy, or as ‘reforming’ it?” He quotes my 1995 opinion on Jehoshaphat’s reform of the judiciary, written before the article of Knoppers was published, where I concluded that the Chronicler’s source seems to reflect the period of Jehoshaphat in some matters but seems later than the time of Jehoshaphat and the end of the southern kingdom in other matters. In my commentary published in 2012, I fully embraced the negative conclusions of Knoppers, except for doubting his proposal that the Chronicler saw an ongoing role for a king like Jehoshaphat in the postexilic community.
After outlining three possible interpretations of the historical character of the war of Jehoshaphat in 2 Chr 20, ranging from lack of historicity (Noth and Klein, among others) to a story based on a real event during the reign of Jehoshaphat (Rendsburg, Dillard, and Rainey, among others) Levin issues no clear opinion on the historical question but only acknowledges “in any case” that the narrative as we have it very much reflects the ideology and the style of the Chronicler himself.
Manasseh’s questionable captivity and repentance is discussed in less than two pages and ends weakly with this comment: “Be that as it may historical or not….All of this, of course, is impossible to verify ‘historically’….” He cites numerous conflicting opinions about the historicity of Manasseh’s captivity and repentance, including Handy’s, who stated that the reality of Manasseh’s exile is probably nill, and Rainey’s opinion: “He was brought to Babylon for interrogation before Ashurbanipal…he evidently managed to convince Ashurbanipal of his innocence. The Chronicler gave a profound religious interpretation of these events.” Which is the most reasonable historical conclusion?
On Josiah’s early reform activities in Chronicles in his eighth and twelfth years (2 Chr 34:3) Williamson had pointed out that there is no evidence that the Chronicler had any additional sources for Josiah’s reign, and Japhet had proposed that the Chronicler was antedating the reforms because of the severe theological problems in the Kings’ chronology. Instead of endorsing these suggestions which he cites, Levin mentions an additional proposal by Levin’s teacher Anson Rainey that the mother of Jehoahaz, who was born about 633 or 632 was Hamultal from the priestly city of Libnah (1 Chr 6:42 [EVV 57] and that Josiah’s father-in-law Jeremiah of Libnah influenced the king to begin his reform earlier. Levin does not evaluate this unlikely proposal or the suggestions of Williamson and Japhet.
Levin outlines the maximalistic and minimalistic views of the size of Josiah’s kingdom, including a map on p. 389 that incorporates both views, but he again fails to take a stance: “Whichever of these approaches to the history of Josiah’s reign is correct….”
Levin states that the presentation of Necho as a messenger of God is unique, but does not state clearly that this information is not historical but rather is the Chronicler’s attempt to explain why the otherwise pious king Josiah had to die. He quotes Leuchter’s opinion that the original Vorlage of Chronicles might have actually named Jeremiah as the conveyer of God’s message, without evaluating this suggestion. The identification of this oracle as delivered through Jeremiah in 1 Esdras is clearly a correction of information in the book of Chronicles.
Levin cites my translation of 2 Chr 35:22 (cf. NRSV) that Josiah disguised himself, as he went into battle, providing a link between the death of Josiah and the account of the death of Ahab. He notes: “However, not all commentators have accepted this interpretation.” He does not evaluate this critique nor mention that Josiah’s statement that he was severely wounded again echoes Ahab, and that it was an archer who wounded both Ahab (2 Chr 18:33//1 Kgs 22:34) and Josiah.
English problems
2 Chr 11:4 your brethren. Note 9, p. 14 literally “your brothers.” So why use the antiquated word brethren in the translation itself?
2 Chr 12:1 he [Rehoboam] abandoned the Torah of the Lord. After a discussion of the term Torah in Chronicles, Levin makes the doubtful conclusion, that the meaning of Torah in 12:1 is “God’s laws,” but for consistency’s sake he retains the word Torah.
Rehoboam bribed off Shishak, p. 30
2 Chr 16:14 miškab is translated correctly as “bier,” but the Hebrew noun is parsed as “laying-down-place” instead of “lying-down-place.”
2 Chr 18:1 “And Jehoshaphat was…married with Ahab.” Levin admits that the NRSV is correct in having Jehoshaphat make a marriage alliance with Ahab, “but the Hebrew does not say so explicitly.”
2 Chr 30:22 “and they ate the festival for seven days.” NRSV paraphrases “they ate the food of the festival for seven days,” but Rudolph and Klein may be right in emending wy’aklw to wyklw (they completed), but he does not change his translation.
2 Chr 33:6 “he did ghosts and familiar spirits.” Better: “He dealt with mediums and wizards.”
2 Chr 34:21 “to do as all that is written on this book.” Contrast this with “to act in accordance with all that is written in this book.”
Levin, p. 443, “The closing formula for Josiah…are”
Levin often refers to the ascension of a king instead of the accession of a king (e.g. Rehoboam, p. 33, Jehoram, p. 161; Manasseh, 371).
Levin frequently translates “reigned” when he should have read “became king” (e.g. with Uzziah, 237): Sixteen years old was Uzziah when he reigned, and fifty-two years he reigned in Jerusalem. Note that the sentence on Uzziah uses “reigned” in two different ways in one sentence. Cf. Abijah, p. 38, Jehoram, p. 166, Hezekiah p. 291. Manasseh, p. 364, Josiah, p. 391