HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION THE BOOK OF CHRONICLES IN JEWISH TRADITION: FROM DANIEL TO SPINOZA
Chronicles has received marginal attention among the Jews. The utilization of Chronicles can be seen in Daniel, Pseudepigrapha, Eupolemus and Josephus Flavius. It was used in the Qumran community less than the majority of Biblical books. 4Q522 reveals that the author's writing depended on Chron...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Peeters
1998
|
| In: |
Revue biblique
Year: 1998, Volume: 105, Issue: 1, Pages: 5-41 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
Non-electronic |
| Summary: | Chronicles has received marginal attention among the Jews. The utilization of Chronicles can be seen in Daniel, Pseudepigrapha, Eupolemus and Josephus Flavius. It was used in the Qumran community less than the majority of Biblical books. 4Q522 reveals that the author's writing depended on Chronicles. The classification of Chronicles in the Hagiographa does not show prejudice of the Rabbis against it. They may have attempted to contrast the climax of the Hebrew Canon with that of the Christian. Chronicles may have been considered as a summary for the entire Scriptures as well. The Rabbinical tradition talks about one comprehensive book by the authors Ezra and Nehemiah. There are examples of folk etymologies formed by Rabbis from Chronicles' genealogies, but there is no midrashic-book in existence on Chronicles. The Targum on this book was written much later than those on other Biblical books, and was neglected over generations. Jewish liturgy referred very little to Chronicles. There is an utilization of 1 Chr 1,1-4 and perhaps also 1 Chr 16,36b; 2 Chr 16,9b in the mosaic inscription of the ancient synagogue at En-Gedi, from the Byzantine period. The commentary that is ascribed to Rashi in Mikraot Gedolot is not by him. Several other Jewish commentators have written on Chronicles in medieval times, however these do not outweigh the general lack of interest in the book. Del Medigo opposed the trustworthiness of Chronicles, and Spinoza preferred some Pseudepigraphical books on it. Although their statements did not encourage scholars to study the book, they opened the critical era in the study of Chronicles. The positive result of the neglect was that the Chronicles' text remained in much better condition than many other Biblical books. Les Chroniques ont reçu peu d'attention de la part des Juifs. Leur utilisation se voit en Daniel, dans les Pseudépigraphes, Eupolème et Josephe. À Qumrân, 4Q522 montre une dépendance des Chroniques. Les Rabbins n'ont pas hésité à les classer parmi les Hagiographes. Les Chroniques ont pu même être considérées comme un résumé de toutes les Ecritures. Il y a des cas, parmi les Rabbins, d'étymologies populaires appuyées sur les Chroniques, bien qu'il n'y en ait pas de commentaire midrashique. Le Targum de ces livres a été écrit bien plus tard que celui des autres livres bibliques, et fut longtemps négligé. La liturgie juive se réfère fort peu aux Chroniques; il y a un écho des Chroniques dans l'inscription sur mosaïques de En-Gedi, d'époque byzantine. Le commentaire attribué à Rashi n'est pas de lui. Del Medigo en conteste l'authenticité, et Spinoza leur préfère certains Pseudépigraphes. Le résultat positif est que le texte des Chroniques nous est parvenu en meilleure condition que celui de bien d'autres livres bibliques. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2466-8583 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Revue biblique
|