Chronicles Clean-up

But the Arameans fled before Israel, and David killed 700 charioteers of the Arameans and 40,000 horsemen and struck down Shobach the commander of their army, and he died there. 2 Samuel 10:18 NASB

700 – I recently gave a lecture on the stories of David and Solomon. In the course of that lecture, I talked about the difference between biblical history and our contemporary idea of history. The difference is basically this: history written in ancient times was far less concerned about recording the accuracy of event chronology and factual details than it was about communicating a message to the intended audience. This is everywhere obvious in the ancient literature of the Middle East. In fact, it is commonly understood that exaggeration, rearrangement and very selective organization of events and characters is the modus operandi of ancient “historical” texts. Modern history takes a different approach, claiming (whether it is true or not) to accurately represent the “facts” in their chronological order and true details. For example, a rough calculation of the amount of gold Solomon accumulated during his reign yields the number (in today’s value) of $37 trillion. Yes, that’s right. Trillion! This appears to be a staggering number. That number exceeds calculations of all gold ever mined in the history of human beings.[1] Something seems funny about the biblical account.

Of course, biblical conservatives have a number of (circular?) arguments justifying exaggerations like this[2], but the problems with historical accuracy are exacerbated when the issues are within the biblical text itself. This verse from Samuel is an illustration. Compare it to the same account in Chronicles. In 1 Chronicles 19:18 David kills 7000 charioteers, not 700. Which account is historical?

You might object that this is just a scribal error, but read this article and you will discover, as the author suggests, that the pattern of revisionist history is typical of Chronicles, not just with details but with broad character descriptions (e.g., cleaning up the idolatry of Solomon). Something far more interesting than “copyist mistakes” is happening here.

The real problem is not with the text. It is with us, the readers. We have a definition of history that is not the same as the authors of Scripture. They have political, moral and spiritual agendas that they write into the stories. Consequently, the stories are shaped to fit these purposes and modified to meet the needs of the ancient audiences. We, on the other hand, come to the text as if it is supposed to be a factually accurate account of what happened, right down to the details. When we discover that it doesn’t meet this criterion, we engage in linguistic gymnastics in order to explain (or explain away) the discrepancy. But this technique is based on two faulty assumptions. First, it assumes that the authors of the Bible take the same view of the recording process that we do, and second, perhaps more importantly, we hold on to a version of divine inspiration that prevents us from accepting the common practices of ancient writers. In other words, we think that because the text is inspired, it must report according to our definition of truth. We view history based on doctrine rather than form doctrine based on history.

The result is a rigidity that defies real academic examination. The result is an inability to appreciate what the original author wrote and the original audience understood. The result is that claims about the Bible appear absolutely foolish to the intellectual community. And for what end? Because we are wedded to the certainty of the book rather than to the faithfulness of the relationship.

Topical Index: 2 Samuel 10:18, 1 Chronicles 19:18, history, inspiration

[1] http://onlygold.com/Info/All-The-Gold-In-The-World.asp

[2] e.g., Philip Ryken’s justification that the amount of gold in the biblical story must be true because it’s in line with other ancient texts. But if exaggeration is common in the ancient world, why should we hold the Bible’s view is accurate? See Ryken, Solomon, p. 159.