Jehoshaphat's Judiciary and the Scroll of YHWH's Torah

Jehoshaphat's Judiciary and "The Scroll of Yhwh's Torah"Author(s): Gary N. KnoppersSource: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 113, No. 1 (Spring, 1994), pp. 59-80Published by: The Society of Biblical LiteratureStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3266310Accessed: 13/09/2009 14:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sbl.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3266310?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sbl

JBL 113/1 (1994) 59-80

JEHOSHAPHAT'S JUDICIARY AND "THE SCROLL OF YHWH'S TORAH"

GARY N. KNOPPERS The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802

In standard treatments of ancient Israelite juridical polity, the depiction of Jehoshaphat disseminating law to the populace (2 Chr 17:7-9) and reorganizing the judiciary (2 Chr 19:4b-11) fulfills a critical function. The books of Samuel and Kings contain only incidental information about the monarch's role in administering justice, while the prophets only allude to royal involvement or corruption in the exercise of justice. Especially since Albright's study of Jehoshaphat's reforms, scholars have cited 2 Chr 17:7-9 and 19:4b-1l as generally trustworthy information for reconstructing the history of monarchical justice in ancient Judah. Albright's assessment that the Chronicler's depiction of Jehoshaphat's juridical reforms is "substantially correct" dominates contemporary scholarly opinion.1

Albright defended the historicity of Jehoshaphat's reforms by appealing to the witness of archaeology and the precedent of Haremheb's reforms in the fourteenth century BCE, but many other scholars have sought to uphold the historical accuracy of Jehoshaphat's reforms by arguing that Jehoshaphat's reorganization reflects a pre-Deuteronomic stage in Israelite judicial development.2 According to H. J. Boecker, G. C. Macholz, A. D. H. Mayes, J. Myers, A. Phillips, K. Whitelam, H. G. M. Williamson, and R. R. Wilson, the Deutero- nomic reform modifies the juridical policy implemented by Jehoshaphat.3

W. F Albright, "The Judicial Reform of Jehoshaphat,' in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume (ed. Saul Lieberman; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950) 61-82. For the range of opinion on the Chronicler's abilities as a historian, see the helpful surveys by S. Japhet, "The Historical Reliability of Chronicles" JSOT 33 (1985) 83-107; and M. P. Graham, The Utilization

of 1 and 2 Chronicles in the Reconstruction of Israelite History in the Nineteenth Century (SBLDS 116; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 9-249.

2 K. Whitelam disputes Albright's use of Haremheb's reforms as an analogy to Jehoshaphat's reforms (The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel [SOTSup 12; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979) 203-5.

3 H. J. Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East

(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980) 47-49; G. C. Macholz, "Die Stellung des Konigs in der israelitischen

Gerichtsverfassung' ZAW 84 (1972) 157-82; idem, "Zur Geschichte der Justizorganisation in Juda" ZAW 84 (1972) 314-40; A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 261-69; J. Myers, II Chronicles (AB 12; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965) 99-117; A. Phillips, Ancient Israel's Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970)

59

Journal of Biblical Literature

Whitelam speculates that the Deuteronomist's omission of Jehoshaphat's judicial reforms in 2 Kgs 22:41-50 is deliberate authorial strategy. The Deuteronomist knows of Jehoshaphat's judicial reforms, yet he retrojects them into the Sinaitic era (Deut 16:16-18; 17:8-13) to lend them more authority.4

Viewing this particular aspect of the Chronicler's presentation as historically accurate has important ramifications for the interpretation of other judicial texts in the Pentateuch. Rolf Knierim sees in Moses' judicial reform (Exod 18:13-27), traditionally ascribed to E, an echo of Jehoshaphat's judicial reform. In fact, Knierim argues that Exod 18:13-27* is an etiological legend legitimizing Jehoshaphat's judicial innovations. Phillips even contends that the present form of the tenth commandment results from Jehoshaphat's reform.7

To be sure, not all scholars accept the testimony of 2 Chr 17:7-9 and 19:4b-11 at face value. Even Albright recognized (but did not define) the presence of Chronistic language in these texts and noted tensions between the two enumerations of Jehoshaphat's reforms. A number of critics demur from the majority opinion. P. R. Ackroyd sees 2 Chr 19:4-11 as a projection, while R. North sees 2 Chr 17:7-9 as reflecting postexilic levitical missions.8 The dissent of a few has not affected, however, the broad scholarly consensus that the Chronicler is, in this instance, historically reliable. But is this consensus

justified? Does the Chronicler's postexilic work present an accurate description of royal justice in the second quarter of the ninth century BCE?

I also doubt whether either 2 Chr 17:7-9 or 19:4b-11 should be employed

18-21; Whitelam, TheJust King, 185-206; H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 277-91; R. R. Wilson, "Enforcing the Covenant: The Mechanisms of Judicial Authority in Early Israel, in The Questfor the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall (ed. H. B. Huffmon et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 39-69; idem, "Israel's Judicial System in the Preexilic Period," JQR 74 (1983-84) 229-48.

4 Whitelam, The Just King, 189-91. 5 M. Noth attributes all of Exod 18:13-27 to the Elohist (Exodus [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,

1962] 146-50). B. Childs basically agrees with the ascription to E, but also argues that Exod 18:13-27 evinces a long and complex literary history (The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974] 321-34). J. Van Seters disagrees with the notion of Elohistic authorship ("Etiology in the Moses Tradition: The Case of Exodus 18,' in Biblical and Other Studies in memory of S. D. Goitein [HAR 9; ed. R. Ahroni; Columbus: Department of Judaic and Near Eastern Languages and Literatures, Ohio State University, 1985] 355-61). He believes that Exod 18:13-27 and Numbers 11 are the work of J.

6 R. Knierim, "Exodus 18 und die Neuordnung der mosaischen Gerichtsbarkeit,' ZAW 73 (1961) 155-67. Because he associates the officials in Exod 18:21b and 25b with the levy, Knierim argues that these verses were not an original part of the E narrative.

7 Phillips, Criminal Law, 151. 8 P. R. Ackroyd, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah (Torch Bible Commentaries; London: SCM, 1973)

146; R. North, S.J., "The Chronicler: 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah," NJBC, 377. J. Wellhausen

(Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel [Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885] 191), R. Mosis

(Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes [Freiburger theologische Studien 91; Freiburg: Herder, 1973] 177), and Van Seters ("Etiology" 360) also see Jehoshaphat's reforms as reflecting the Chronicler's own time.

60

Knoppers: Jehoshaphat's Judiciary

to formulate a detailed reconstruction of preexilic monarchical justice. In my view, historians should approach the Chronicler's configuration of Jehoshaphat's judicial reforms much more critically. This does not mean, however, that the Chronicler's work simply reflects his own time. The Chronicler, or any writer for that matter, does not present an unmediated view of either the past or the present. To see the Chronicler's presentation of Jehoshaphat's judicial initiatives as mirroring either history or the Chronicler's contemporary situa- tion avoids fundamental questions of context, language, commitment, interpretation, imagination, and tradition. The relationship of the Chronicler's

history to history-whether preexilic or postexilic-is complex. This study examines Jehoshaphat's reforms in their literary context - the

Chronicler's presentation of Jehoshaphat and the monarchy9 Probing the literary context of Jehoshaphat's two reforms yields new and important results. First, this investigation casts doubt on whether either royal judicial initiative should be viewed merely as a doublet or reflex of the other. Jehoshaphat's two reforms are related but are also fundamentally different. Second, I will argue that 2 Chr 19:4b-11, no less than 2 Chr 17:7-9, reflects the language and the

ideology of the Chronicler. Hence, I take issue with the scholarly typology of judicial texts in the Pentateuch and Former Prophets. 2 Chr 19:4b-ll is not essentially either pre-Deuteronomic or pre-Elohistic. This point raises

questions about the historical reliability of the information included within 2 Chr 19:4b-11.

Third, in depicting Jehoshaphat's judiciary, the Chronicler is indebted to both Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy, not vice versa. The Chronicler is familiar with the depictions of a centralized judiciary in Deut 17:8-13, as well as Moses' reform of the judiciary, presented in Exod 18:13-27 and rewritten in Deut 1:9-18. Those features which 2 Chr 19:4b-ll shares with the Mosaic and the Deuteronomic judicial reforms can be best explained by viewing the Chron- icler's record of Jehoshaphat's reforms as partially exegetical. Fourth, the Chronicler not only participates in a tradition of interpretation; he also transforms this tradition with his own work. The configuration of Jehoshaphat's

9 I am using "the Chronicler" to refer to the author of 1 and 2 Chronicles and "Chronistic" to refer to a text or feature within the broader corpus of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. I agree with D. N. Freedman ("The Chronicler's Purpose'" CBQ 23 [1961] 432-42), S. Japhet ("The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew:' VT 18 [1968] 330-71), F M. Cross ("A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,' JBL 94 [1974] 4-18; = Int 29 [1975] 187-203), and H. G. M. Williamson (Israel in the Books of Chronicles [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977] 5-70; "The Composition of Ezra i-vi, JTS 34 [1983] 1-30) that one author is not responsible for Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. I disagree, however, with Japhet and Williamson in making a sharp distinction between the perspective of the author of Chronicles and the perspective(s) of the author(s) of Ezra-Nehemiah. In my judgment, these authors lived at different times, but belonged to a single tradition or school. Hence, I see both continuity and

discontinuity between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. For a survey of opinion, see R. Braun, "Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah: Theology and Literary History,' in Studies in the Historical Books

of the Old Testament (ed. J. A. Emerton; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 52-64.

61


administration of justice reflects the Chronicler's own views on the administration of justice. Jehoshaphat's judicial reorganization is consistent with the pivotal role the Chronicler consistently ascribes to the king in governing Israel. Jehoshaphat's reforms are an ideal, a program that extends the political and military structure established by his predecessors to advance and further define the royal Davidic role in administering the kingdom. The Chronicler's treatment of Jehoshaphat's reforms therefore mirrors neither the ninth century BCE nor the postexilic period, but the Chronicler's own ideology.

I. Jehoshaphat's Reforms in Literary Context

In 2 Chr 17:7-9 Jehoshaphat sends officers, priests, and Levites into the cities of Judah to teach "the scroll of the torah of YHWH" (2 Chr 17:7-9). In 2 Chr 19:4b-ll he establishes a two-tiered judiciary. If one deems the latter as historically valid, how does one interpret the former? E. L. Curtis, A. A. Madsen, and Albright view 2 Chr 17:7-9 simply as a doublet of 2 Chr 19:4-1.10 But Myers sees more of a problem: How can a text describing the enforcement of torah predate the composition of torah? Myers hypothesizes that 2 Chr 17:7-9 originally referred to a royal edict or decree, which is reinterpreted by the Chronicler as "the scroll of the torah of YHWH " (2 Chr 17:9)." Other scholars dismiss 2 Chr 17:7-9 as the Chronicler's own creation.'2

But none of the attempts to minimize the differences between Jeho- shaphat's two reforms seem compelling. How is the teaching mission in 2 Chr 17:7-9 a misunderstood doublet or reflex of the judicial reorganization in 2 Chr 19:4b-11? If a royal proclamation underlies the reference to "the scroll of the torah of YHWH,' what is the nature of this hypothetical edict and why promul- gate it "in all the cities of Judah" (2 Chr 17:9)? Moreover, what is the relationship between the dissemination of Jehoshaphat's royal pronouncement and his imposition of a new judiciary?

In my judgment, these questions are best addressed by first examining the respective contexts of 2 Chr 17:7-9 and 19:4b-11. The Chronicler presents Jehoshaphat's reign as a series of discrete segments.3 Jehoshaphat's two reforms clearly occur in two different periods of his reign.14

10 E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, The Books of Chronicles (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1910) 393; Albright, "Judicial Reform," 82.

11 Myers, II Chronicles, 99-100. 12 Ackroyd, Chronicles, 143; Mosis, Untersuchungen, 177; North, "Chronicler," 377. 13 In contrast to the Deuteronomist's brief history of Jehoshaphat's reign, the Chronicler writes

an extensive history of Jehoshaphat's tenure (101 verses), longer than for any other king of Judah, except Hezekiah (117 verses). The Chronicler includes practically all the information from Kings, but he greatly supplements and recontextualizes this information. I am discussing 2 Chronicles 17-19 only as this context illumines the nature and function of Jehoshaphat's two reforms. Readers can find a more complete treatment of the Chronicler's portrayal of Jehoshaphat and how this presentation differs from that of Kings by referring to my "Reform and Regression: The Chronicler's Presentation of Jehoshaphat,' Bib 72 (1991) 500-524.

14 The Chronicler includes, however, only cursory transitions between the periods he depicts in Jehoshaphat's tenure (2 Chr 17:7; 18:1; 19:4; 20:1; 20:35).

62


(1) 2 Chr 17:1-19 Consolidation, Reform, and Prosperity (2) 2 Chr 18:1-19:4a Failure of Joint Campaign to Ramoth-gilead (3) 2 Chr 19:4b-ll Judicial Reform

The Chronicler's evaluations of Jehoshaphat portray him as one of Judah's

outstanding kings.'5 This positive assessment is manifest in the series of early successes Jehoshaphat enjoys, successes that are not mentioned in Kings (2 Chr

17:1-19).

Consolidation, Reform, and Prosperity (2 Chr 17:1-19)

The Chronicler's portrayal of the first period in Jehoshaphat's reign is

unequivocally positive. Jehoshaphat institutes a variety of martial, economic, political, and cultic measures that strengthen his nation over against its

neighbors. The interdependence of his policies is evident in the Chronicler's

carefully organized presentation of this segment in Jehoshaphat's tenure in which later royal measures balance or complement earlier royal measures.'6

Jehoshaphat begins by "consolidating his rule against Israel" (v. 1), placing warriors in all the fortified cities of Judah and stationing prefects "in the land of Judah and in the cities of Ephraim" (v. 1-2). Jehoshaphat thereby protects the territorial gains made by his predecessors, Abijah (2 Chr 13:19) and Asa

(2 Chr 15:8; 17:1-2). YHWH establishes Jehoshaphat's realm (2 Chr 17:5). The

people, in turn, acclaim and enrich their new ruler (2 Chr 17:5).17 Having immersed himself in the ways of YHWH (v. 3-4), the new king

implements cultic reforms, removing the high places and asherahs from Judah (v. 6). Jehoshaphat also takes steps to promote orthopraxis by educating the

people in "the scroll of the torah of YHWH" (v. 7-9). Jehoshaphat therefore takes advantage of the security he helps to create by sponsoring a campaign in torah literacy.'8 Earlier biblical texts mention juridical responsibilities of monarchs (e.g., 2 Sam 8:15-18; 1 Kgs 3:16-28) and express the desire for royal justice (e.g., 1 Sam 8:5; Psalm 72). But 2 Chronicles 17 is unique in reporting

15 2 Chr 17:3-4; 20:32-33; 21:12b-13a; 22:9. For interrelationships between these assessments, see my "Reform and Regression," 506-7, 518-19.

16 The Chronicler's organization of this period is chiastically arranged (Knoppers, "Reform and Regression,' 504-11).

17 In Chronicles, popular support, riches, and tribute all suggest divine favor. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 203-10; Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Beitrage zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums 9; Frankfurt: Peter

Lang, 1989) 150-76; and R. B. Dillard, "Reward and Punishment in Chronicles: The Theology of Immediate Retribution," WTJ 46 (1984) 164-72.

18 As Japhet (Ideology, 234-44); and J. R. Shaver (Torah and the Chronicler's History Work: An Inquiry into the Chronicler's References to Laws, Festivals and Cultic Institutions in Relation to Pentateuchal Legislation [BJS 196; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989] 73-86) observe, "the scroll of the torah of YHWH" most probably refers to a version of the Pentateuch. The degree to which this Pentateuch resembled the Pentateuch of the MT is disputed and need not detain us.

63


a royal mandate for disseminating torah. The view that a source underlies 2 Chr 17:7-9 - describing Jehoshaphat's enforcement of a royal law code or his own edict-is therefore misguided.l9 To be sure, the authors of Hammurapi's Code associate this corpus of laws with Shamash. Yet these same scribes also promote Hammurapi as a lawgiver20 In contrast, the authors of biblical law write pseudepigraphically, portraying YHWH as Israel's lawgiver.21

Set against the background of Israelite and ancient Near Eastern legal traditions, 2 Chr 17:7-9 ingeniously presents a king promulgating not his own royal code but God's law. To underscore the significance of this educational enterprise, Jehoshaphat sends his own officers (I'.'), as well as certain Levites and priests, throughout the cities of Judah on teaching missions. All three groups of officials play significant roles elsewhere in Chronicles.22 The king's officers ('DtW) function throughout 2 Chronicles as royal assistants in adminis- trative, martial, and cultic matters23 The complementary functions of priests and Levites in this text are consistent with the general presentation of these two groups in Chronicles.24 Hence, the Chronicler portrays something unprece- dented in Israelite history: a king employing his adjutants, the priests, and the Levites to educate his whole people in torah. The economic, political, military, and educational aspects of Jehoshaphat's enterprises are linked. Educational reforms do not come at the expense of or lead to a dimunition

19 Contra Myers, II Chronicles, 99-100. 20 T. J. Meek, "The Code of Hammurabi," in ANET (3d ed.; Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1969) 165. 21 M. Greenberg, "Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law, in The Jewish Expression (ed.

J. Goldin; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1976) 21-24; Whitelam, TheJust King, 209-18; Boecker, Law, 41-42.

22 I do not see the sequence Levites and priests (instead of the expected priests and Levites) in 2 Chr 17:8-9, 19:8 as sufficient warrant for believing that the Chronicler used a source to compose these verses (pace T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972] 198).

23 2 Chr 21:9; 26:11; 28:21; 29:30; 30:6, 12, 24; 31:8; 32:3; 36:18. These officers do not seem to represent "secular" officials, who in an early period exercise a judicial function, subsequently overtaken by a priestly caste (pace S. J. De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles [FOTL 11; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989] 312; Knierim, "Exodus 18"' 167-71; Myers, II Chronicles, 99; Phillips, Criminal Law, 18-19). In the Chronicler's configuration of the monarchy, the king rules within a theocracy. There may be cultic, martial, and political specialization within the kingdom of God in the hands of the sons of David (1 Chr 28:2-8; 2 Chr 13:5), but the lines between the military, political, and cultic responsibilities of those leaders who serve within this kingdom are sometimes unclear and, in any event, do not represent a secular/sacred distinction.

24 The teaching responsibility of the Levites is also patent in 2 Chr 35:3 and Neh 8:7-8. On the relationship between priests and Levites in Chronicles, see G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930) 81-119; A. Welch, Post-Exilic Judaism (Edinburgh/London: William Blackwood, 1935) 216-41; P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Social Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 269-79; and, more recently, J. Wright, "The Legacy of David in Chronicles: The Narrative Function of 1 Chronicles 23-27,JBL 110 (1991) 229-42. I am following Wright in seeing much of 1 Chronicles 23-27 as the Chronicler's own work.

64


of military resources. Rather, cultic, educational, and military ventures coalesce in creating security, prosperity, piety, and peace within Judah and respect for

Judah among its neighbors: "the fear of YHWH was upon all the kingdoms of the lands, which surrounded Judah and they did not go to war with Jeho- shaphat" (v. 10). In fact, some of Judah's neighbors send great tribute to

Jehoshaphat (v. 11). Not only the structure of his highly stylized narrative but also the

Chronicler's own assessments of Jehoshaphat underscore a strong and blissful rule: "YHWH was with him" (v. 3); "Jehoshaphat followed his [YHWH's] com- mandments" (v. 4), "YHWH established the kingdom in his hand" (v. 5), "his mind was exalted in the ways of YHWH" (v. 6); and "Jehoshaphat grew steadily greater" (v. 12). Jehoshaphat, in turn, becomes even stronger militarily. Con-

tinuing his earlier military expansion (17:1-2), Jehoshaphat builds fortresses and store-cities in Judah (v. 12-13a). The Chronicler concludes his depiction of this period in Jehoshaphat's reign by mentioning a muster in Jeru- salem of 1,160,000 "men of war, mighty warriors" from Judah and Benjamin (w. 13b-19).

Failure of Joint Campaign to Ramoth-gilead (2 Chr 18:1-19:4a)

Even though the Chronicler's Jehoshaphat enjoys great martial, political, and cultic success, he initiates a major policy shift in his relations with the northern kingdom. Jehoshaphat becomes related (7^nr)1) to Ahab (2 Chr 18:1). The Chronicler effects this shift by incorporating and reworking the battle narrative of 1 Kgs 22:1-40, involving Jehoshaphat and Ahab. For the Chronicler, this union of interests is retrograde.5 Presiding over a strong military, a reformed people, and a prosperous economy, the Jehoshaphat of Chronicles has no ostensible reason to pursue closer relations with the Omride dynasty. If the disastrous outcome of Ahab and Jehoshaphat's expedition does not clearly establish their pact as a fiasco, the Chronicler underscores his disapproval of it by including a prophetic rebuke of the defeated southern king (2 Chr

19:2b-3).26

Judicial Reform (2 Chr 19:4b-ll)

The sequence of two disparate narratives-Jehoshaphat's initial successes and his humiliation at Ramoth-gilead-accentuates the differences between these two periods in Jehoshaphat's rule. The third segment in Jehoshaphat's tenure marks another shift in royal fortunes. Jehoshaphat undertakes a major judicial reform, unparalleled in Kings, which transforms the administration

25 Knoppers, "Reform and Regression,' 510-14. 26 R. Micheel, Die Seher- und Propheteniiberlieferungen in der Chronik (BBET 18; Frankfurt

am Main/Bern: Peter Lang, 1983) 48-50.

65


of justice within his realm. These juridical innovations therefore mark the second time Jehoshaphat appears as a bold, pious, and energetic leader.

The Chronicler draws three links between the positive periods he posits in Jehoshaphat's reign. The use of DY' NTlI W'1l ("and he again went out among the people" 2 Chr 19:4b) and the reference to nl'M7,l n;lm '1-1 ("in all the fortified cities of Judah,' 2 Chr 19:4-5) resonate with features of the earlier account (2 Chr 17:2, 19). The pedagogical responsibilities of Jehoshaphat's high court (see below) recall the earlier teaching mission (2 Chr 17:7-9). Hence, there is continuity between Jehoshaphat's two major domestic initiatives. 2 Chr 19:4b-ll depicts Jehoshaphat returning to and developing the kinds of constructive policies that he instituted at the beginning of his reign.

In this new phase of his reign, Jehoshaphat travels among his people from Beer-sheba to the hill country of Ephraim and "restores them (D''I) to the God of their fathers" (2 Chr 19:4b). The geographic scope of this restoration is ambitious, reclaiming his entire realm (2 Chr 19:4b-5; cf. 17:1-2). Jehosha- phat's reform of his people lays the groundwork for his renovation of his nation's

judiciary. Having earlier assigned troops and prefects to all the fortified cities

(2 Chr 17:2), Jehoshaphat now stations judges (M't!D) within each of these cities (2 Chr 19:5).

He further extends his influence in and control over the distribution of

justice by appointing a court in Jerusalem, staffed by Levites, priests, and clan chiefs (2 Chr 19:8). These court officials address cases referred to them by their kinsmen in the cities (2 Chr 19:10). The Chronicler may also construe their duty as adjudicating disputes within the city of Jerusalem, but this is

textually uncertain (2 Chr 19:8) 27 In any event, the judicial system Jehoshaphat creates reflects substantial royal involvement in the organization of justice but, paradoxically, no direct royal involvement in adjudicating legal disputes. The crown does not represent a court of final appeals. Rather, the judicial officials in the high court are subject to Amaryahu, the chief priest, in every matter of YHWH, and to Zebadyahu, the commander of the house of Judah, in every matter of the king (2 Chr 19:11).

Like other good kings in Chronicles, Jehoshaphat exercises a constructive and influential role in the affairs of his people.28 The Chronicler's periodiza- tion of Jehoshaphat's reign creates stark contrasts between Jehoshaphat's accomplishments and failings. Compared with the ill-fated alliance with Ahab, Jehoshaphat's martial, cultic, and educational reforms and his renovation of

27 The MT reads D5pLttn' n'n 'l1, while the LXX has xat xpivetv Toug xacooxouvtag Ev

IlpouaoXi.t. On the basis of the LXX, some scholars posit an original 5fl'r "3t' ?'L' 1. A third

option (RSV) is to repoint the MT as 13tn, "they sat" (at Jerusalem). Along with W. Rudolph (Chronikbucher [HAT 21; Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1955] 256), I think that the LXX lemma makes the most sense.

28 Japhet, Ideology, 395-491; T.-S. Im, Das Davidbild in den Chronikbiichern: David als Idealbild des theokratischen Messianismus fur den Chronisten (Europaische Hochschulschriften Reihe 23, Theologie, Bd. 263; Frankfurt am Main/Bern/New York: Peter Lang, 1985) 35-163.

66


juridical polity represent high points of his tenure. Hence, in the third period of his reign, Jehoshaphat again shows himself to be a resourceful and inno- vative leader. His judicial reorganization marks a major advance in the administration of Judah.

Summation

In his discussion of Jehoshaphat's judicial reforms, Myers claims that 2 Chr 17:7-9 and 19:4b-11 "were really two aspects of the same movement of whose

general historicity there can hardly be any doubt"29 When considered in their literary context, neither reform appears, however, simply as an aspect, reflex, or doublet of the other. The first enterprise educates people in torah, whereas the second reconfigures Judah's judiciary. Moreover, the earlier reforms comprise one component of a larger set of martial, political, and cultic endeavors, while the later initiatives are directed toward a single goal: revamping the administration of justice in Judah.

Despite the optimistic assessments of many scholars, historians should regard the Chronicler's depiction of Jehoshaphat's educational reforms with a healthy skepticism. First, the chronological distance between the Chronicler and the events he portrays may be five to six centuries. Second, one cannot easily jettison the anachronistic reference to "the scroll of the torah of YHWH" as a superficial Chronistic accretion to an older text or tradition. The royal deployment of a teaching mission in 2 Chr 17:7-9 has no force or raison d'etre without it. Third, the idealized manner and means by which Jehoshaphat enforces torah comports with the Chronicler's distinctive theological stance.

Finally, one could claim that the Chronicler employs a source for this narrative, a source that he overwrites in his own style and according to his own theological agenda. Yet, if this is true, how much does 2 Chr 17:7-9 inform historians about Jehoshaphat's rule in the second quarter of the ninth century? If the Chronicler's handling of the Deuteronomistic History is any indication of how he handled extrabiblical sources, one must approach even those cases in which the Chronicler apparently employs a source with great care. The Chronicler often quotes verbatim from his Vorlagen of Samuel and Kings, but his process of selection, editing, supplementation, and recontextualization can generate an impression of the text in question that is substantially different from its meaning within its original context.30

The relationship between the Chronicler's account of Jehoshaphat's judicial reform and preexilic Judahite history is more difficult to assess and deserves detailed attention. The Chronicler's claims of royal interest in the

29 Myers, II Chronicles, 108. 30 See Japhet, "Book of Chronicles," EncJud 5. 527-29; S. L. McKenzie, The Chronicler's Use

of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985); and my "Rehoboam in Chronicles: Villain or Victim?" JBL 109 (1990) 423-40.

67


administration of justice and of the establishment of a royally appointed court in Jerusalem may well have historical justification. Indeed, there may even have been something about Jehoshaphat's tenure to attract the Chronicler's attention.' Such kingly interest and involvement in the administration of justice would be consonant with the interests and activities of other ancient Near Eastern monarchs.32 But is the Chronicler's configuration of Jehoshaphat's juridical polity historically accurate? Should historians view the respective officials, their duties, and the delineation of their authority in 2 Chr 19:4b-ll as a generally trustworthy reflection of ninth-century juridical polity? If

phraseology, syntax, and style are any indication, I do not think so. A close examination of 2 Chr 19:4b-11 reveals many signs of Chronistic composition.

II. The Chronicler's Composition of 2 Chr 19:4b-ll

Those scholars who notice Chronistic language in 2 Chr 19:4b-ll define the extent of this language in somewhat similar ways. S. R. Driver contends that Jehoshaphat's speech in 2 Chr 19:6-7 represents the Chronicler's own views.33 Japhet and Williamson see 2 Chr 19:6-7, 9-10, Ulb as stemming from the Chronicler's own hand.4 It should be immediately apparent that the verses, which these scholars view as Chronistic, comprise part or all of Jehoshaphat's exhortations (w. 6-7, 9-11). Yet it is within these verses, specifically Jeho- shaphat's second paraenesis (w. 9-11), that Jehoshaphat defines the critical function of the second (high) court. In my judgment, the Chronicler's contributions are not limited, however, to w. 4, 6-7, and 9-11. Each verse within 2 Chr 19:4b-11 contains forms or expressions that are characteristic of the Chronicler's style, syntax, or ideology. The following list is not exhaustive.

(1) Q"'D ;-In- 3??i ? q', "from Beersheba to the hill country of Ephraim" 2 Chr 19:4; cf. 1 Chr 13:5; 21:2; 2 Chr 30:5. Williamson notes that the Chronicler's manner of description differs from earlier biblical descrip- tions (e.g., "from Dan to Beer-sheba").35

(2) D'1lrqn '^blN F1'm, "YHWH, the God of the(ir) fathers"

31 This interest on the part of the Chronicler would likely include, but not be limited to, Jehoshaphat's name itself (pace Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 191).

32 Boecker, Law, 21-26; Whitelam, The Just King, 17-37; M. Weinfeld, "Judge and Officer in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East," IOS 7 (1977) 65-88; M. A. Dandamaev, "State and Temple in Babylonia in the First Millennium B.C.,' in State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East II (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 6; ed. E. Lipiriski; Leuven: Departement Orienta- listiek, 1979) 589-96.

33 S. R. Driver, "The Speeches in Chronicles," The Expositor 1 (1895) 246-48; 2 (1895) 290-91. Driver does not comment on Jehoshaphat's second speech (v. 9-11).

34 Japhet, Ideology, 245. Japhet does not address the origins or reliability of the other verses, but Williamson views w. 5, 8, and lla as stemming from a source (1 and 2 Chronicles, 288-89).

35 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 144.

68


2 Chr 19:4. As Japhet points out, this expression is a favorite of the Chronicler, occurring twenty-seven times in Chronicles, three times in Ezra, but only sixteen times in the rest of the Bible.36

(3) 'Tnr1 (the hiphil of 7TX), "to appoint" 2 Chr 19:5, 8; 1 Chr 6:16; 15:16; 16:17 (// Ps 105:10); 17:14; 22:2; 2 Chr 8:14; 9:8; 11:15, 22; 20:21; 24:13; 25:5, 14; 30:5; 31:2; 33:8; 35:2; Ezra 3:8; Neh 4:3; 6:7; 7:3; 10:33; 12:31; 13:11, 30. See also Dan 11:11, 13, 14. In earlier sources, the hiphil of mv usually means, "to station."37

(4) 'Tl 1T'", "[several judges] for every city." 2 Chr 19:5. The repetition of a singular noun to convey distribution is also found in 1 Chr 26:13; 28:14 (twice); 2 Chr 8:14; 11:12; 28:25; 31:19; 32:28; 34:13; 35:15; Ezra 10:14; Neh 13:24. As Polzin observes, this feature, in four multiforms, rarely appears outside of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.38

(5) nioln- [;71n-] ~' , "the fortified cities (of Judah)." 2 Chr 19:5; 17:2; 32:1 (112 Kgs 18:13//Isa 36:1); 33:14. Elsewhere this expression is found only in Zeph 1:16.39

(6) tOt MV n' DD~n, "and [YHWH] is with you in the matter of judgment." 2 Chr 19:6. Driver and Kropat point out that the Chronicler sometimes omits subjects or, less often, verbs from his sentences (e.g., 1 Chr 9:33; 15:13; 2 Chr 10:11, 14; 11:22; 15:3; 16:10, 12; 17:4; 18:3; 21:15; 26:18; 28:21; 30:9, 17; 35:21).4

(7) SY tlr'l1ino MIT, "the fear of YHWH was upon. 2 Chr 19:7; 14:3; 17:10; 20:29; cf. 1 Chr 14:17. Elsewhere this expression is found only in 1 Sam 11:17 and Job 13:11.4

(8) MN[;71 Tn] "Wr , "clan chiefs" 2 Chr 19:8; 1 Chr 7:11; 8:6, 10, 13, 28; 9:9, 33, 34; 15:12; 23:9, 24; 24:6, 31; 26:21, 26, 32; 27:1; 2 Chr 1:2; 23:2; 26:12. This expression occurs only in Chronicles, Ezra (1:5; 2:63; 3:12; 4:2, 3; 8:1; 10:16), Nehemiah (7:69, 70; 8:13; 11:13; 12:12, 22, 23), and P (Exod 6:25; Num 31:26, 28; 36:1; Josh 14:1; 19:51; 21:1)42

36 Japhet also examines the Chronicler's distinctive use of this expression (Ideology, 14-19). 37 S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (new ed.; New York:

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1914) 535 (#4); Curtis and Madsen, Chronicles, 32 (#89); Japhet, Ideology, 398, 431.

38 R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSM 12; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976) 47-54. See also the comments of Driver, Introduction, 538 (#35); Curtis and Madsen, Chronicles, 35 (#124); and A. Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik Vergleichen mit der seiner Quellen: Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebriischen (BZAW 16; Giessen: Topelmann, 1909) 13.

39 An alloform of this expression, -1n= D'n7Y, occurs in 2 Chr 11:5 and 21:3. 40 Driver, Introduction, 537 (#27); Kropat, Syntax, 63-64. 41 Driver, Introduction, 537 (#26); Curtis and Madsen, Chronicles, 33 (#96). 42 Curtis and Madsen, Chronicles, 33 (#104); J. Weinberg, "Das beit 'abot im 6.-4. Jh. v. u.

Z.' VT 23(1974) 400-414. In contrast, the expression 3K n'" appears only once in Chronicles,

69


(9) ,71nwi, "truthfully" 2 Chr 19:9; 1 Chr 9:26, 31; 31:12, 15; 34:12. This phrase is found only five times in other biblical books (2 Kgs 12:16; 22:7; Isa 59:4; Hos 2:22; Ps 33:4).

(10) D5W ' 5, "whole heart" 2 Chr 19:9; 1 Chr 28:9; 29:9, 19; 2 Chr 15:17; 16:9; 19:9; 25:2. The Chronicler adopts this expression from the Deuteronomist.43

(11) ':Db2/5 rp3j, "wrath is upon" 2 Chr 19:10; 1 Chr 27:24; 2 Chr 19:2; 24:18; 29:8; 32:25, 26. This cliche is a favorite of the Chronicler, but is not unique to his writing. It also

appears in Josh 9:20; 22:20; 2 Kgs 3:27; Isa 34:2; Hos 10:7; Zech 1:2, 15, and P (Num 1:53; 17:11; 18:5).

(12) WRl; 7,D, "chief priest."44 2 Chr 19:11; 1 Chr 27:5; 2 Chr 24:11; 26:20; 31:10; Ezra 7:5. Elsewhere the expression is found only in 2 Kgs 25:18 (// Jer 52:24). The more typical formulation, if these terms refer to the same thing, is 51n'1 7;l (Lev 21:10; Num 35:25, 28; Josh 20:6; 21:1; 22:13; 2 Kgs 12:11; 22:4, 8; 23:4; Zech 3:1, 8; 6:11; Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4; Neh 3:1, 20; 2 Chr 34:9).

(13) l15VI-'3 1/77il"/-''T, "matter of YHWH (or God)/matter of the king" 2 Chr 19:11; 1 Chr 26:32. This expression is found only in Chronicles; see also Ezra 7:26 (RL5Dn "'I Nm'l l t R-1 ln).

(14) lt1t 1pt, "be strong and act" This collocation is found only in Chronicles (2 Chr 19:11; 1 Chr 28:10, 20; 2 Chr 25:8) and Ezra (10:4)45

Recognition that 2 Chr 19:4b-11 reflects the Chronicler's style, syntax, and phraseology leads to a number of conclusions. First, the account of

Jehoshaphat's reforms has been more heavily shaped by the Chronicler than

previously thought by most scholars. Second, Chronistic cliches appear in both the description of Jehoshaphat's reforms and the citation of Jehoshaphat's speeches (w. 6-7, 9-11). Hence, the argument that the description of Jeho-

shaphat's reforms reflects a source cannot be sustained.4 Both the portrayal of Jehoshaphat's reforms and the portrayal of Jehoshaphat's instructions evince

Ezra, and Nehemiah (Neh 1:6). See P. Dion, "The Civic-and-Temple Community of Persian Period

Judea: Neglected Insights from Eastern Europe," JNES 50 (1991) 285. 43 M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 335 (#10). 44 On the form Vtf';,l 7M, see Kropat, Syntax, 46. 45 On the Chronicler's use of the verbal root pTn, see S. Japhet, "Interchange of Verbal Roots

in Parallel Texts in Chronicles', Hebrew Studies 28 (1987) 27-28; and Knoppers, "Rehoboam in Chronicles" 435-37.

46 Contra Curtis and Madsen, Chronicles, 402; R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Waco: Word, 1987) 147; K. Galling, Die Biicher der Chronik, Ezra, Nehemia (ATD; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954) 124-26; Knierim, "Exodus 18:' 162-64; Macholz, "Geschichte," 319-21; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 288-89.

70


the Chronicler's active hand. Finally, because the Chronicler has heavily shaped this pericope, it becomes much more difficult to demonstrate that Jehosha- phat's reforms precede and explain Exod 18:13-27 and Deut 16:18-20, 17:8-13.

III. The Chronicler's Reformulation of Earlier Traditions

There are scholars who concede the presence of Chronistic language in 2 Chr 19:4b-11, but who also maintain that 2 Chr 19:4b-ll presents an accurate picture of Jehoshaphat's reign. Albright, for instance, contends that doubting the historical validity of Jehoshaphat's reforms, because of Chronistic language and religious perspective, would be "thoroughly unjustifiable"47 Similarly, Wilson admits that 2 Chr 19:4b-10 reflects "the language and theology of the Chronicler' yet maintains that its description is generally accurate48 Inasmuch as "texts are events in the history of language," the event of 2 Chr 19:4b-10 is clearly postexilic.49 Hence, it is unlikely that 2 Chr 19:4b-10 both exhibits "the language and theology of the Chronicler" and faithfully reflects historical conditions perhaps half a millennium earlier. But let us assume, for the sake of argument, the tenability of Albright and Wilson's position and set aside questions of lemmata, style, and syntax to examine the content of 2 Chr 19:4b-11. Does a comparison between 2 Chr 19:4b-11; Exod 18:13-27; Deut 1:9-18; 16:18-20, and 17:8-13 lead to the conclusion that the Chronicler's depiction of Jehoshaphat's judicial reform historically precedes and explains these other accounts of judicial reforms?50

Close study of 2 Chr 19:4b-ll reveals both similarities and major differences with other juridical (biblical) traditions. The Chronicler's depiction of Jehoshaphat's judiciary resembles both Moses' delegation of his judicial duties to certain magistrates (Exod 18:13-27; Deut 1:9-18) and the Deuteronomic division of judiciary powers between local courts and a centralized court at "the place which YHWH your God shall choose" (Deut 17:8). There is an un- questionable relationship between Chronicles and these other traditions. I would argue, however, that the Chronicler's presentation is indebted to the very judicial traditions in Exodus and Deuteronomy that many scholars maintain reflect Jehoshaphat's reforms. The Chronicler engages earlier traditions, but 2 Chr 19:4b-ll also bears his own distinctive ideological stamp. I will

47 Albright, "Judicial Reform" 75. 48 Wilson views, however, the recourse of the higher court to a chief priest and to a commander

of the house of Judah (2 Chr 19:11) as reflecting Achaemenid polity ("Israel's Judicial System," 245-48).

49 D. LeCapra, Rethinking Intellectual History: Texts, Contexts, Language (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983) 65.

50 The comparison assumes that the most primitive text is likely to be historically accurate or, at least, more historically accurate than later texts. But historical precedent is, of course, no guarantee of reliability.

71


compare the relevant texts under five rubrics: occasion, structure, officials, function, and paraeneses.

Occasion

The context for judicial reorganization is strikingly different in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Chronicles. Moses implements a judicial reform, at the behest of Jethro, because the administration of justice has become too time- consuming for one person (Exod 18:13-18). The delegation of certain juridical responsibilities to qualified judges allows Moses to fulfill his duties as a mediator between God and his people, teaching the people God's will (Exod 18:17-23).51 Jehoshaphat's judicial reform is not occasioned by any such pressing need. The renovation of the judiciary in Chronicles evinces Jehoshaphat's return to bold leadership and piety following a period of regression (2 Chr 18:1-19:4a). It marks a greater royal say in the organization of justice within Judah and Jerusalem.52

Like Jehoshaphat's overhaul of the judiciary, the Deuteronomic reorganization of the judiciary involves a central collegium.53 In fact, the general context and occasion for Deuteronomy's high court are the earlier mandate for cultic centralization (chap. 12).54 In the light of this revolutionary development, the authors of Deuteronomy carefully distribute power among a variety of institutions-local courts (Deut 16:18-20; 17:2-7), a central court (Deut 17:8-13), a king (Deut 17:14-20), a levitical priesthood (Deut 18:1-8), and prophets (Deut 18:15-22)55

Whatever the similarities and differences between the Deuteronomic reform and the Chronicler's reform, the differences between Exod 18:13-27 and 2 Chr 19:4b-11 stand out. Not only do the two reforms emerge from two entirely different contexts, but the two leaders-Moses and Jehoshaphat- play divergent roles. Moses is a one-man court of appeals for important (5~'T3,; 'f -Wr5O, Exod 18:22) or difficult (71iwpjl -1, Exod 18:26) cases, but

51 M. Buber, Moses and the Revelation and the Covenant (New York: Harper & Row, 1958) 99-100; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967) 219-21.

52 Japhet, Ideology, 246, 431-33; Whitelam, The Just King, 201-2. 53 Deut 17:8-13 assumes the existence of this court and defends its authority (see esp. w. 10-13). 54 See B. M. Levinson, The Hermeneutics of Innovation: The Impact of Centralization upon the

Structure, Sequence, and Reformulation of Legal Material in Deuteronomy (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1991) 325-432.

55 Scholars debate whether part or all of Deut 16:18-18:22 is preexilic or exilic. See N. Lohfink, "Die Sicherung der Wirksamkeit des Gotteswortes durch das Prinzip der Schriftlichkeit der Tora und das Prinzip der Gewaltenteilung nach den Amtsetzen des Buches Deuteronomium (Dt 16,18-18,22),' in Testimonium Veritati (ed. H. W. Wolff; Frankfurter theologische Studien 7; Frankfurt: Knecht) 143-55; and U. Riitersworden, Von der politischen Gemeinschaft zur Gemeinde: Studien zu Dt 16,18-18,22 (BBB 65; Frankfurt am Main: Athanaum, 1987). Since no one argues, to my knowledge, that the Chronicler used only a truncated, early version of Deuteronomy, these disputes need not detain us.

72


Jehoshaphat is not. Nor does any one official dominate Jehoshaphat's supreme court. The king establishes a structured, two-tiered judicial system in which he himself plays no judicial role. Moses decentralizes his power, while Jeho- shaphat extends his power in Jerusalem and the fortified cities of Judah. Given these fundamental differences, I fail to see why Exod 18:13-27 would be written as an etiology for Jehoshaphat's judicial reform.

Of the three accounts, Exodus 18 seems to be the most primitive. The association with the priest of Midian, the mobility of the courts, and the simplicity of these courts all suggest a less developed, less stable, and less stratified society than that presupposed by both Deuteronomy and Chron- icles.56 I see, however, little warrant on the basis of context for assigning a relative historical priority to either Chronicles or Deuteronomy. On the one hand, one could argue that Deuteronomy's presentation of Israel on the plains of Moab predates the monarchy. Yet this position would be precritical. On the other hand, one could argue that since Deuteronomy's quasi-antimonarchi- cal stance presupposes the monarchy, it postdates Jehoshaphat's reforms. Yet this second theory also encounters problems. First, the Deuteronomist does not mention any judicial reforms in his coverage of Jehoshaphat. Whitelam's contention that the Deuteronomist retrojects Jehoshaphat's reforms to the Sinaitic period does not explain why the Deuteronomist fails to mention that Jehoshaphat honored or implemented Moses' directives.7 Second, the Chron- icler may be reacting against the Deuteronomic restrictions upon royal preroga- tive in the judicial sphere. I will argue later that this is indeed the case.

Structure

Like the division of powers depicted in Exod 18:13-27 (//Deut 1:9-18); Deut 16:16-18; and 17:8-13, the system of justice Jehoshaphat establishes is two- tiered. In both Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy 16 the people themselves are to nominate or appoint qualified judges. Exod 18:21 and Deut 1:13 list the appropriate qualities such magistrates should have. In Chronicles, however, all judicial officials are designated by the crown (2 Chr 19:5, 8).

In contrast to the mobile judicial system promoted by the priest of Midian in Exod 18:17-23, both Deuteronomy (16:18-20) and Chronicles locate the

56 Noth, Exodus, 146-50; R. Clifford, "Exodus, NJBC, 51. If, as Van Seters contends ("Etiology," 361), the account in Exodus 18 was written as a midrash on Deut 1:9-18, this would not materially affect our general argument.

57 Whitelam presumes that the Deuteronomist is the author of Deut 16:18-20; 17:8-13-a presumption that many scholars do not share. Although there is an overlap between Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic concerns, I would not wish to equate the two. See the overview by S. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (VTSup 42; Leiden: Brill, 1991) 1-19.

73


first tier of courts in urban sites.58 Deuteronomy 16:18-20 mandates the place- ment of magistrates and officials in every city (T8']Wbi- ), while Jehoshaphat appoints magistrates in "all of the fortified cities of Judah" (2 Chr 19:5). Given that the expression "within (all of) your gates" is Deuteronomic and the expression "the fortified cities of Judah" betrays the Chronicler's hand (see above), it seems precarious to contend that the Chronicler's account is earlier, because it involves a less extensive judicial reformation than Deuteronomy.59 Both expressions reflect the styles of their respective writers.0

In Exodus (18:26) the high court resides in the person of Moses, but both

Deuteronomy and Chronicles posit a permanent high court in Jerusalem (Deut 17:8; 2 Chr 19:8). Of the two central courts, the Chronicler's is the more com- plex61 In Deut 17:9 the high court is staffed by levitical priests and a magistrate. In 2 Chr 19:8 Jehoshaphat staffs his high court with Levites, priests, and Israelite clan chiefs. These high court judges do not function, however, in isola- tion. They are aided by levitical officials, presumably in secretarial matters and in implementing executive decisions (2 Chr 19:11).62 Moreover, the Levites, priests, and clan chiefs also have recourse to Amaryahu, the chief priest, for

every matter of YHWH, and to Zebadyahu, the commander of the house of

Judah, for every matter of the king (2 Chr 19:11). The most economical explanation for the range in structure from simple

(Exodus 18) to the most complex (Chronicles) would be to see the Elohist's

polity as representing the earliest composition and the Chronicler's polity as

representing the latest. This would also explain the features the Chronicler's polity shares with both E and Deuteronomy. The Chronicler selectively draws

upon both Elohistic and Deuteronomic writings in composing his own history. One could argue the opposite position, that the Elohist and the Deuteronomic writers have each deliberately simplified a historically more complex court

represented by Chronicles. But this alternative is a more labored and difficult

argument to sustain.

Officials

A standard means to defend the historicity of Jehoshaphat's reforms points to the antiquity of the titles, which appear in his history. Inasmuch as some of these appellations appear in earlier books, they purportedly prove the reliability of the Chronicler's record. Hence, Phillips cites the "officers" (V'It),

58 Jethro advocates and Moses implements a system in which Moses appoints "capable men... chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, and of fifties" to adjudicate minor disputes (Exod 18:22-26). For the military connotations of these designations, see Knierim, "Exodus 18:' 167-71.

59 Contra Knierim, "Exodus 18," 162-67; Macholz, "Geschichte," 333-39; Phillips, Criminal Law, 19; Whitelam, The Just King, 192; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 288-89.

60 Mosis, Untersuchungen, 277. 61 Pace Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 288-89. 62 Weinfeld, "Judge and Officer" 83-86.

74


Macholz the "officials" (D1tt), Williamson "the clan chiefs" (DMlqNl '?'), and Rudolph "the commander ('331) of the house of Judah" to argue that the Chronicler draws upon ancient tradition.63 These arguments are largely unconvincing. The titles of Jehoshaphat's officials recur elsewhere in Chron- icles, which is, after all, the primary context for determining their significance. Jehoshaphat may add a new judicial aspect to their responsibilities, but the judges, Levites, priests, clan chiefs, and officials already exercise a number of functions in the Chronicler's history of the monarchy.

Levitical duties, for instance, are not limited to matters of the cult, but extend to matters of administration, the military, and the economy.4 As we have seen, "the clan chiefs" (Mlqn1 "wl') appear only in Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and P. Hence, the appearance of this title indicates late, rather than early, composition.65 The officials (D'nt~?) appear much less often in Chronicles than the clan chiefs. In 1 Chr 27:11 the Dr'tZ? function as royal servants. In 2 Chr 26:11 a 1wV serves a more specific function as an organiz- ing officer in King Uzziah's military.66 The judges (Q't.o ) are sometimes grouped with the ~D"'tOt in Chronicles (e.g., 1 Chr 23:4). Together with the WIt'W, the tStt supervise "the outside" work over Israel (1 Chr 26:29; cf. Neh 11:6). Judges also appear alongside clan chiefs and other leaders in Solomon's national assembly (2 Chr 1:2).

The title "commander" ('J3) is used for a variety of different positions in Chronicles. In fact, this title appears twice as often in Chronicles as in any other biblical book67 As we have seen, Rudolph maintains that its use in 2 Chr 19:11 recalls the leaders of the old tribal league. Yet the appellation 137n ; "Tlrl'-n=5 ("the commander of the house of Judah") never appears in any other biblical book. Moreover, as Wilson and Blenkinsopp point out, Jehoshaphat's distinction between matters pertaining to the king (i.e., the commander of the house of Judah) and matters pertaining to YHWH (i.e., the chief priest)

63 Phillips, Criminal Law, 18-19; Macholz, "Geschichte" 333-35; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 290; Rudolph, Chronik, 257.

64 1 Chr 9:17; 15:18; 23:5; 26:1-19; 1 Chr 23:4,; 24:20; 26:23-32; 2 Chr 31:4-19. See J. Wright, "Guarding the Gates: 1 Chronicles 26.1-9 and the Roles of the Gatekeepers in Chronicles,"JSOT 48 (1990) 69-81.

65 The ml '1 ttNR' figure prominently in the Chronicler's genealogies (1 Chr 8:6, 13, 28; 9:33, 34; 23:9; 24:6, 31; 26:12, 21), but also occasionally take an active role in national assemblies (1 Chr 15:12; 2 Chr 1:2; 23:2). J. Blenkinsopp views these leaders as heading kinship units or subdivisions

(nl:R nr). Each ancestral house defended its claims and property by recourse to genealogical descent (Ezra-Nehemiah [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988] 76-78). Blenkinsopp's position is akin to that of Weinberg (see above).

66 In some contexts the D'~It are identified as Levites (1 Chr 23:1-4; 26:29; 2 Chr 34:13). 67 The term appears twenty-one times in Chronicles (1 Chr 5:2; 9:11, 20; 11:2; 12:28; 13:1; 17:7;

26:24; 27:4, 16; 28:4; 29:22; 2 Chr 6:5; 11:11, 22; 19:11; 28:7; 31:12, 13; 32:21; 35:8). It appears ten times in Samuel-Kings and only sporadically in other books.

75


reflects a postexilic context.68 The context for the designation-nrT5 'Tp31 ;nmTl -in 2 Chr 19:11 therefore points toward postexilic composition rather than to the use of an ancient source.69

In his reorganization of the judiciary, Jehoshaphat draws on the stock of leadership already present in his kingdom. There is little evidence that the judicial officials, or the roles ascribed to them in 2 Chr 19:5-11 mirror ninth- century Judahite polity. On the contrary, we have seen that at least some of the officials, together with the roles assigned to them, reflect late composition. In this regard, the constitution of the Chronicler's Jerusalem tribunal- Levites, priests, and clan chiefs-is of particular interest. Basing his description of the high court both on the leadership of his own day (e.g., rnN:21 lR'N) and on officials he posits in the past (e.g., nr-n 1:T '1T3), the Chronicler coordinates their relations and balances their responsibilities according to his own ideal of justice.

Function

There are verbal parallels between the functions of Jehoshaphat's high court and the functions of both the Deuteronomic high court and the Mosaic high court. First, there is an explicit overlap in the kinds of cases the Deuteronomic and Chronistic courts confront. Both Deuteronomy and Chron- icles use the expression 15-0' p1:: ("between one kind of homicide and

another"), elsewhere unparalleled in the Bible, to indicate one function of this high court's jurisdiction (Deut 17:8; 2 Chr 19:10). The function of the Chron- icler's high court also resembles Moses' judicial function in Exodus. Whereas the authors of Deuteronomy define the jurisdiction of their high court further

(.135 3t ' pp1-r1p15 p-171 -p 1 , Deut 17:8), the Chronicler, like the Elohist in his description of Moses' duties, stresses the paraenetic responsibility of this high court.

In Exod 18:21-26 the priest of Midian prefaces his proposal that Moses address only major (v. 22) or difficult (v. 26) cases by reaffirming Moses' mediatorial role: "and you shall teach them the laws and the teachings (nlp-nnnnRl r pnn"-nl ,nn" mnFri lT) and you shall make known to them the way they should go and the actions they should take" (Exod 18:20). Similarly, Jehoshaphat tells his priests, Levites, and Israelite ancestral heads, "as for every dispute which comes to you from your kinsmen, those living in their cities, whether concerning homicide or concerning teaching or commandment, laws or judgments (D'Vt5i Dmpr*r5 rn 5 r1n--p 1 : DT-1lp), you shall teach them

(mri;,TIll) so that they do not incur guilt before YHWH and there be wrath

68 Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 151; Wilson, "Israel's Judicial System,' 247-48. See also section II of this paper.

69 The Chronicler's use of the term probably represents deliberate archaizing on his part.

76


upon you" (2 Chr 19:10).70 The use of the verb 1~T with a double accusative is found only in these two texts (Exod 18:20; 2 Chr 19:10).71 Moreover, the use of "teaching(s)" and "laws" in 2 Chr 19:10 recalls the priest of Midian's directive to Moses that he continue to teach his people "the laws and the teachings" (Exod 18:16, 20).72 The Jerusalem tribunal established by Jeho- shaphat therefore combines elements found separately in other courts. The Chronicler collocates two independent and otherwise isolated linguistic forms, located in Deut 17:8 and Exod 18:20 respectively, and blends them in his own presentation. The literary dependency of the Chronicler's composition on both of these older traditions is therefore indisputable.

The representation of older lemmata in 2 Chr 19:4b-11 serves to sanction the Chronicler's system of justice. Jehoshaphat's judiciary resembles both Moses' judiciary and the judiciary mandated on the Plains of Moab. But the Chronicler does not simply duplicate and combine older legal material. He selects, supplements, and hence transforms earlier forensic theory and precedent. The judiciary he posits in Jehoshaphat's reign resonates with certain features of both Moses' judicial reform and the Deuteronomic reform, yet ultimately manifests the Chronicler's own distinctive perspective.

Paraeneses

Like the authors of Exod 18:13-27; Deut 1:9-18; and Deut 16:18-20, the Chronicler includes a paraenesis to the magistrates appointed to the lower tier of judicial responsibilities (2 Chr 19:6-7). Jehoshaphat's advice is, however, most similar to Moses' advice in Deut 1:17: "you will listen [and] not be afraid on account of a man for the judgment belongs to God" (nW-NI5 7lYnrW 0D7bL5 tV1,t"I D ViN-'~M , Deut 1:17).73 Similarly, Jehoshaphat instructs his judges, "Take heed to what you are doing, for you judge not for humans, but for YHWH" (11nt15 1: iw n b1lt R 05 : -p TnN7' 1 Nl, 2 Chr 19:6).

70 The Chronicler's text in 2 Chr 19:10 is either corrupt or elliptical. I take the latter position. According to Japhet (Ideology, 244-47), the first sentence should end after D'h with the words "you shall pronounce judgment" Another clause, such as "Whenever a question comes to you . . ., would then preface 'mn 1:1. This proposal clarifies the dual responsibilities of the Chronicler's high court- adjudication of disputes and instruction. But Japhet does not explain what precisely triggered the haplographies.

71 The hiphil of I'T occurs also in Ezekiel, but always with the accusative of person (e.g., Ezek 3:17-21 [seven times]; 33:3, 7, 8, 9; BDB 264).

72 It is conceivable, as Macholz ("Geschichte," 321-25) and Boecker (Law, 48) maintain, that the Chronicler construes this high court as being only a consultative body for the lower courts in the cities. But Exod 18:20 does not imply that this sort of restriction applies to Moses. On the contrary, education is only one of Moses' duties (Exod 18:13-26). Similarly, I am not inclined to see 2 Chr 19:8-11 as denoting instruction as the central court's only responsibility.

73 Driver, "Speeches,' 290-91. In Deut 1:17 I am reading with the MT (lectio brevior). The LXX adds the copula before N5.

77


Piety as a prerequisite to the proper exercise of justice is mentioned in Exod 18:21, but is emphasized in 2 Chr 19:6-7. The magistrates are to execute their responsibilities in "the fear of YHWH" Some commentators also see parallels between the advice in 2 Chr 19:6-7 and the advice in Deut 1:17

(DUD ?rn-NR , "you shall not show partiality") and 16:19 (D3D 1'On aL 't npn~-l, "you shall not show partiality and you shall not take a bribe"). But I would argue that the closest parallels to 2 Chr 19:7, both lexically and

thematically, are found in Deut 10:17 and Deut 32:8. Like these passages, 2 Chr 19:7 grounds human justice in divine justice. Both Deut 10:17 (D"D MW"-5 tr1t np' lh', "you shall not show partiality and you shall not take a bribe") and 2 Chr 19:7 ('1TW-Mnp31 Rtlq l, "showing partiality or taking a bribe") uphold the deity as the paradigmatic judge, asserting that God neither shows

partiality nor takes bribes. The Song of Moses acclaims YHWH as a "God of truth and not falsehood" (51' l1l' 7l?O 5N, Deut 32:4). Similarly, Jehoshaphat declares to his judges that "there is no falsehood with YHWH our God"

(n^~ 13 ;1q ;'11P-i 18R-', 2 Chr 19:7). The stress on ethics is also paramount in Jehoshaphat's charge to the Levites, priests, and Israelite clan chiefs he

appoints to his Jerusalem collegium (2 Chr 19:8). These officials are to act "in the fear of YHWH, truthfully and wholeheartedly" (2 Chr 19:9).

However much the Chronicler resembles other biblical writers in depicting YHWH as the exemplary magistrate for whom human magistrates judge, the advice of Jehoshaphat also bears the Chronicler's own distinctive stamp. For the Chronicler, renovating the administration of justice does not simply involve creating a new institution. Reciprocity characterizes divine-human relations74 A succinct summary of this dogma appears in the speech of the

prophet Azariah to King Asa, "YHWH is with you when you are with him. If

you seek him, you will find him; but, if you abandon him, he will abandon

you" (2 Chr 15:2). I would argue that the Chronicler's doctrine of retribution is also evident

in Jehoshaphat's counsel to his judges. Jehoshaphat conjoins piety and impar- tiality in the pursuit of justice with the promise of divine presence. Befitting his name (t.?tfl), Jehoshaphat reminds his judges (0Dt=) that they judge (I=tt ) on behalf of YHWH and that YHWH75 is, in turn, with them when they pass judgment (t=3V, 2 Chr 19:6).76 Similarly, in his second paraenesis,

74 Japhet (Ideology, 165) points out that the Chronicler's doctrine of retribution differs from that of the Deuteronomist in that the Chronicler does not emphasize either ancestral merit or cumulative guilt.

75 Rudolph's proposal (Chronik, 256) to add Nl1 after 1 in 071=1 is unnecessary. As we have seen in section II, the omission of a subject in a sentence is a characteristic feature of the Chronicler's syntax.

76 This play on divine justice (t3D) is apparent also in Jehoshaphat's prayer (2 Chr 20:6-12). When Judah is beseiged by foreign enemies, Jehoshaphat implores YHWH, "0 our God, shall

you not judge (3Din) them, for we have no strength before this great throng" (2 Chr 20:12). I

plan to deal with the battle account of 2 Chr 20:1-30 in a future study.

78


Jehoshaphat underscores to the Levites, priests, and clan chiefs the impor- tance of justice and judicial education, "so that they do not incur guilt before YHWH and there be wrath upon you" (2 Chr 19:10). Improper or ignorant actions lead to culpability for those whom the court is supposed to help and divine wrath upon those who fail to uphold their fiduciary trust. Conversely, Jehoshaphat alludes to the promise of divine assistance for those who act correctly, "Be strong and act. And may (YHWH) be with the good" (2 Chr 19:11).77 Hence, in stressing the axis between human action and divine action, Jeho- shaphat's advice exemplifies a major tenet of the Chronicler's theology.

IV. Conclusions: Jehoshaphat's Judiciary in Context

In its structure, titles for officials, function, and paraeneses, the description of Jehoshaphat's judicial renovation evinces two consistent features: indebtedness to other biblical accounts of judicial reforms and Chronistic composition. In other words, the very links between Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Chronicles that scholars have used to justify the priority of Jehoshaphat's reforms actually point in the opposite direction. The Chronicler selectively draws upon the depictions of both the Mosaic reforms and the Deuteronomic reforms.

But why does the Chronicler write a narrative that both engages earlier judicial traditions and transcends them? In the postexilic age Yehud does not have its own king. Why, then, does the Chronicler sketch such a foundational role for the king in reorganizing Judah' s judiciary? Since the Deuteronomic judicial reforms can be implemented without a king, why does the Chronicler not model Jehoshaphat's reforms more closely on the Deuteronomic distribution of powers? The Chronicler's narrative also exhibits postexilic features. This raises additional questions about the Chronicler's reasons for writing. Is the Chronicler simply reifying postexilic judicial practice by recourse to preexilic precedent? If so, why would he stress Jehoshaphat's pivotal role in reforming the judiciary? It seems unlikely, given the Chronicler's nationalistic stance, that the Chronicler defends Achaemenid royal policies in the guise of earlier Davidic policies.78

The presentation of Jehoshaphat's bold leadership in 2 Chr 17:1-19 and 19:4b-ll elucidates the Chronicler's agenda. The Chronicler is a monarchist.79

77 Again, I see the Chronicler's formulation as elliptical. I therefore see no reason to emend the text of 2 Chr 19:11 by inserting 'ty after 0y (contra Rudolph, Chronik, 256).

78 On Achaemenid legal and judicial policies, see M. A. Dandamaev and V. G. Lukonin, The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 96-130.

79 See Freedman, "The Chronicler's Purpose," 432-42; Cross, "Reconstruction," 4-18; Japhet, Ideology, 395-411, 501-4; Williamson, "The Dynastic Oracle in the Books of Chronicles,' in Sefer Yitshak Aryeh Zeligman (ed. A. Rof6; Jerusalem: Rubenstein, 1983) 2. 305-18; and my "What Share Have We in David?": The Division of the Kingdom in Kings and Chronicles (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1988) 36-68, 365-75, 463-71.

79


The royal accumulation of wives, horses, and wealth may be taboo in Deuter- onomy (17:14-20), but many wives, large families, large armies, and tremen- dous wealth all signify royal success and divine blessing in Chronicles.0 The Chronicler sees the Davidic kings as divinely elected leaders, a constitutive

part of the way in which YHWH structures his relationship with Israel. He never concedes that the deity abrogrates this design for Israel's leadership. On the contrary, the Chronicler declares that "YHWH, the God of Israel, has given the kingship over Israel to David and to his sons forever, through a covenant of salt" (2 Chr 13:5). Hence, it is unlikely that in describing Jehoshaphat's renovation of justice, the Chronicler is merely defending the status quo.

The Chronicler poses a juridical-political ideal different from what either the past (i.e., the Elohistic and Deuteronomic writers) or the present (i.e., Achaemenid hegemony) dictates. His history, no less than Deuteronomy, is

programmatic. The Chronicler draws on both past tradition and present reality, but his history does not duplicate either. In writing about the past the Chronicler attempts to shape the present. His configuration of relationships transcends conflicts between rival sacerdotal houses, priests and judges, kings and prophets, kings and judges, and judges and the populace. The Chronicler's

king cares about military security and juridical reform and is equally adept at achieving both. Isaiah berates the officers (D'to) for corrupting justice (Isa 1:21-23; 3:2-15). Micah condemns both officer (-it) and magistrate (t.O?1) for graft and partiality toward the rich (Mic 7:1-6). Zephaniah compares officers

(D'Wt) to roaring lions, and judges (D^t?W) to wolves of the evening (Zeph 3:3). But Jehoshaphat sends his officers (::t,') throughout Judah to educate the people in torah, reforms the people himself, and inculcates piety in his

magistrates. The competing interests represented by the priests, Levites, military, clan chiefs, and royalty become coordinated and complementary interests in Chronicles. The Chronicler's depiction of Jehoshaphat's reforms ultimately reflects what he believes justice should be.8

80 Dillard, "Reward,' 167-70; Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 203-10. 81 I presented an earlier version of this paper to the Biblical Law Group of the Society of

Biblical Literature during its 1992 annual meeting in San Francisco. I would like to thank the members of this group, especially B. M. Levinson, for their helpful comments on my work. I am also indebted to the Institute for the Arts and Humanistic Studies at Penn State University for a grant, which supported the research for this article.

80

Jehoshaphat's Judiciary and the Scroll of YHWH's Torah

Documents

Transcript of Jehoshaphat's Judiciary and the Scroll of YHWH's Torah