Paul Evans, «Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21. An Overlooked Aspect of the Chronicler’s Theology», Vol. 85 (2004) 545-558
This paper challenges current scholarly opinion in regard to
the Chronicler’s belief in divine intermediaries. In 1 Chronicles 21, unlike in
the Chronicler’s Vorlage, the angel is clearly distinguished from Yahweh
himself, communicates Yahweh’s word to Gad, and flies. The Chronicler’s
replacement of Yahweh with N+# also reflects this
belief. Persian Dualism may have been influential but there is no
evidence that the Chronicler felt the need to remove all aspects of evil from
originating in God. Although not representing a complete doctrine of Satan, as
developed in later Jewish writings, 1 Chronicles 21 is an important stage its
development.
552 Paul Evans
These angelological changes have sometimes been explained by
suggesting that they are the result of Ch’s reliance on a Hebrew text-
type like that of 4QSama which includes the description of the angel
hovering in mid-air (26). However, the direction of dependence is
difficult to determine and the real possibility that Chronicles
influenced 4QSama should be considered (27). In fact, these advanced
angelological elements (particularly the angel’s sword) seem more
likely to be original to Chronicles than Samuel because they are used
by Ch as an apologetic to justify why David offered sacrifice on
Ornan’s threshing floor without consulting Yahweh at Gibeon (28). The
same elements do not appear to have such a purposeful function in the
Samuel text but are only mentioned offhandedly. Also, as noted above,
the particular rewording of 2 Sam 24,16 in 1 Chr 21,15 seems to
betray the same concerns as Ch’s rewording of 2 Kgs 19,35 in 2 Chr
32,21. Additionally, it must be noted that the 4QSama parallel to 1 Chr
21,18, although it is extant, does not include the angel commanding
Gad (29). Therefore, this suggests that Ch at least, continued the
angelological reworking by the addition of the role of mediator to the
angel, if indeed Chronicles was not the source for the 4QSama
angelological additions against MT (30). The inclusion of the flight of
the angel may actually be the result of the scribe partially conflating
the two texts (31). With no consensus on how to interpret the textual
(26) E.g., S. MCKENZIE, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History
(Atlanta 1985) 56. Cf. W.E. LEMKE, “The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler’s
Historyâ€; E. ULRICH, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19;
Missoula 1978) 151, 157.
(27) Cf. JAPHET, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville 1993) 382; P. DION, “The
Angel with the Drawn Sword; An Exercise in Restoring the Balance of Text
Criticism and Attention to Contextâ€, ZAW 97 (1985) 116.
(28) DION, “Angel with the Drawn Swordâ€, 116.
(29) Though McKenzie dismisses this variant reading of Chronicles as
“expansionistic†on behalf of Ch (The Chronicler’s Use, 57).
(30) The way the textual evidence is used varies widely and should serve as a
caution to the interpreter. For example, Dion concedes that 1 Chr 21,16 may
derive from a different text type of Samuel but argues that Ch emphasized the
angelological elements to deliberately revise the census narrative (“Angel with
the Drawn Swordâ€, 117). On the other hand Japhet argues that Ch responded to
the angelological elements in his sources by “softening and reducing themâ€
(Ideology, 143).
(31) An example of such conflation can be seen in another Qumran text,
1QIsa. In this text the scribe seems to have jumped from Isaiah 34,4 to Micah 1,4
only to revert back to the Isaiah text (for a highly legible photograph of the
manuscript see J.C. TREVER, Scrolls from Qumrân Cave 1 [Jerusalem 1974] 35).