Gershon Galil, «The Chronological Framework of the Deuteronomistic History», Vol. 85 (2004) 413-421
This article points out that the series of the minor judges were not included in the deuteronomistic edition of the Book of Judges, and therefore did not form part of the Dtr’s chronology. In the author’s opinion the Dtr constructs a chronological framework spanning 480 years from the Exodus to the establishment ofthe Temple (1Kgs 6,1) and correlates it with the chronological data in Deuteronomy–Samuel.
414 Gershon Galil
Samuel and the schematic framework in 1 Kgs 6,1, which determines 480
years from the Exodus to the establishment of the Temple (3).
*
**
The chronology of the period from Moses to Samuel and the correlation
between the chronological data in Deuteronomy–Samuel and the schematic
framework in 1 Kgs 6,1, have been discussed extensively in the literature.
Scholars have formulated many hypotheses for the resolution of the
complicated chronological problems of this period, without producing any
generally accepted solution.
Many scholars are of the opinion that 480 years is a round calculation of
a period of 12 generations of 40 years each, based on the Priestly tradition in
1 Chr 5,29-37 [6,1-15], which counted 12 generations from Aaron to Azariah,
who served in Solomon’s Temple (4). However, this common claim is clearly
wrong, for there is not even one evident “Priestly tradition†that numbers
precisely 12 generations from Aaron, the first priest, to Azariah, the priest in
the time of Solomon. Actually, there are many “Priestly traditions†in 1 Chr
5–6, and in Ezra 7,1-3, and they are self-contradictory. Only one “traditionâ€
mentions explicitly that Azariah, “is the one who served as priest in the house
that Solomon built in Jerusalem†(1 Chr 5,36 [6,10]). Yet, this “traditionâ€
counted 15, not 12 generations from Aaron to Azariah, who served in
Solomon’s Temple (5). Other scholars hold that 440 years, read by the LXX
for the MT’s 480 in 1 Kgs 6,1, should be preferred, and that it is based on
eleven generations between Aaron and Zadok, mentioned in 1 Chr 5,29-37
[6,1-15] (6). However, as Rowley rightly pointed out, “there is not the
slightest reason to suppose that the author of 1 Kgs 6,1 had access to the
Book of Chronicles, or that he had independent knowledge of the High
Priestly genealogy†(7).
Other researchers are of the opinion that most of the chronological data
in Deuteronomy–Samuel was coordinated with the schematic framework in 1
Kgs 6,1, but their proposals are unconvincing.
(3) For the Dtr’s chronological framework spanning 400 years from the establishment
of the Temple to the fall of Jerusalem, see my article “Dates and Calendars in Kingsâ€
(forthcoming).
(4) J. WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin 2001 [1927]) 225; A.
GAMPERT, “Les ‘480 ans’ de 1 Rois vi, 1â€, RThPh N.S. 5 (1917) 241-247; B. MAZAR, “The
Exodus and the Conquestâ€, The World History of the Jewish People: Judges (London
1971) I/3, 72; H. TADMOR, “Chronologyâ€, Encyclopaedia Biblica (Jerusalem 1962) IV,
250-251 (Hebrew); M. COGAN, “Chronologyâ€, The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York
1992) I, 1005.
(5) For the emendation of vv. 9-10 [MT 5,35-36] and the assumption that the first-
mentioned Azariah was a priest in the Temple of Solomon see E.D. CURTIS – A.A.
MADSEN, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC;
Edinburgh 1910) 128-129; S. JAPHET, I and II Chronicles. A Commentary (OTL;
Louisville, KY 1993) 150. But even if we accept this common opinion, we still count 13
and not 12 generations from Aaron to Azariah.
(6) For this proposal see G. GRAY, I and II Kings (OTL; Philadelphia 1970) 159; G.H.
JONES, 1 and 2 Kings (NCB; Grand Rapids 1984) 163.
(7) H.H. ROWLEY, From Joseph to Joshua (London 1950) 95.