Channels, Spring 2019

Page 10 Shields • Chronicles work. The Bible is consequently viewed not so much as a library or a large anthology but as one text, with a beginning and an end… Once read as a whole, the larger structure of the Tanak, or the Hebrew Bible, therefore provides a sort of wide-angle lens through which its contents can be viewed.” 53 Genesis being at the beginning and Chronicles being at the end provides “the visual field of focus for the Tanak”. 54 Genesis and Chronicles focus on the same themes, following the seed of Eve through Abraham, Judah, and David, anticipating the Messiah. 55 Having these two books at either end of the canon gives the whole book a Messianic frame as it ends with the eschatological hope that the Messiah is still to come. Another point to consider is the effect that placing the book of Chronicles at the end has on the book of Daniel. David Noel Freedman has pointed out that the interpretation of Daniel 9 is different if Ezra-Nehemiah closes the Hebrew Bible instead of Chronicles. 56 If Ezra-Nehemiah is last, “the edict of Cyrus identifies the historical return under Ezra and Nehemiah as the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s vision of seventy years. It is as if Daniel 9, and its view of seventy weeks of years, were nowhere in sight.” 57 Sailhamer also points out that with Chronicles placed at the end, a “conscious effort” is made to have the very last words of the Bible be the decree of Cyrus. 58 In this way, the Chronicler has left out a historical fulfilment of the prophesy in Jeremiah and Daniel, which allows for a Messianic reading of all three texts. This agrees with the Hebrew text that is behind the Septuagint version of Jeremiah, and with the interpretation of these texts in the New Testament. 59 Overall, the internal evidence of the Hebrew Bible, the Writings, and the book of Chronicles itself, is best explained by the strategic placement of the book at the end of the Hebrew Bible. “Mere” and “Meant” Contextuality 60 Thus far, this study has argued that the placement of Chronicles at the end of the Hebrew Bible was intentional. Arguments against this thesis have stated that, one, there is no conclusive evidence externally or internally for the location of the book, and two, that the multiple orders of the Writings are merely records of reception history. For the most part, scholars agree that the placement of books inside the canon shape the theological meaning of each book in light of the whole. However, some scholars do not argue for a correct order of the canon. Instead, they argue for the importance of viewing every possibility and appreciating the different theological meanings that each order offers. The difference between the view that this study argues for and the opposing view outlined above is their understanding of contextuality. “Mere” contextuality acknowledges that the placement of 53 Stephen Dempster. “Geography and Genealogy, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible”, in Biblical theology: retrospect and prospect , ed. Scott J. Hafemann. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press; Leicester, England: Apollos, 2002), 67. 54 Ibid., 68 55 Ibid., 73 56 David Noel Freedman, The Unity of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Vintage, 1993) 57 John H. Sailhamer. “Biblical Theology and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible”, 35. 58 Ibid. 59 Ibid., 36. The Hebrew text behind the Septuagint version of Jeremiah never identifies the “enemy from the North” as Babylon, leaving room for an interpretation that anticipates an eschatological enemy rather than one fulfilled in history. 60 Ched Spellman uses these designators to describe the impact of reading a text in light of its surroundings. These categories are helpful for this discussion. Ched E. Spellman. Toward a Canon-Conscious Reading of the Bible: Exploring the History and Hermeneutics of the Canon . (Sheffield Phoenix Press Ltd, 2014).