Greek Historiography and the Chronicler's History

JBL 122/4 (2003) 627–650

GREEK HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE CHRONICLER’S HISTORY: A REEXAMINATION

GARY N. KNOPPERS [email protected] The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802

In scholarly criticism of the Chronicler’s work it has become almost axiomatic to say that the composition of Chronicles bears no signs of either Hellenic or Hellenistic influence.1 Indeed, many commentators have used the putative lack of parallels with the conventions of ancient Greek historiography as a prime reason to rule out a late date for Chronicles.2 In other words, there is no relationship whatsoever between the literary conventions found within classical historiography and those found in the Chronicler’s work. The putative lack of a relationship has become one of the grounds for ruling out a late date for the composition of Chronicles. According to this widely accepted reconstruction, the book belongs to a period prior to the meeting between western and eastern Mediterranean cultures purportedly initiated by the conquest of Alexander the Great.

1 By the Chronicler, I mean the author of Chronicles. For recent discussions, see S. Japhet, “The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah,” in Congress Volume, Leuven 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 298–313; I. Kalimi, “Die Abfassungszeit der Chronik: Forschungsstand und Perspektiven,” ZAW 105 (1993): 223–33; S. Talmon, “Esra und Nehemia: Historiographie oder Theologie?” in Ernton was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu einem 65. Geburtstag (ed. D. W. Daniels et al.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 329–56. For a different perspective, defending the more traditional view that Chronicles and Ezra- Nehemiah were authored/edited by the same person, see J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Com- mentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 47–54. 2 E.g., P. R. Ackroyd, Israel under Babylon and Persia (New Clarendon Bible; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), 7. An exception is P. Welten, who argues for Hellenistic influence on the Chronicler’s descriptions of building fortifications and weaponry (Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern [Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973]).

627 628 Journal of Biblical Literature

The failure to explore comparisons with the conventions of classical historiography is unfortunate.3 Cross-cultural studies offer the benefits of compar- ing similar phenomena in a plurality of social settings, illuminating otherwise odd or inexplicable traits of certain literary works, exploring a set of problems in different societies, and calling attention to the unique features of a particular era or writing. Moreover, ancient Greece does offer national histories that may be compared with the Deuteronomistic History and the Chronicler’s History.4 A number of historiographical writings from classical Greece have been scruti- nized with a view to the composition of Genesis and the Deuteronomistic His- tory, even though almost all scholars date Genesis and the Deuteronomistic History significantly earlier than the Chronicler’s work.5 Problems of chronology and geographical distance have not prevented scholars from undertaking such cross-cultural studies with the Pentateuch, the Former Prophets, and Ezra-Nehemiah.6 Given such precedents, it is surely ironic that the chronologi-

3 Abbreviations for works in biblical and ancient Near Eastern studies follow regular JBL style. Abbreviations for additional works in classics (not listed in the JBL stylesheet) follow those used in the Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed.; ed. S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), xxix–liv. 4 By comparison, there are no national histories (that we know of) in the lands of Mesopotamia and Egypt until relatively late (Berossus in Babylon; Manetho in Egypt). See further J. Van Seters, In Search of History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 8–54, 209–321. On Manetho as more than a compiler or chronographer, see D. B. Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals, and Day-Books: A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History (Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 4; Mississauga, ON: Benben, 1986). The recent discussion of G. P. Verbrugghe and J. M. Wickersham (Berossos and Manetho: Introduced and Translated [Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996]) seems to be unaware of Redford’s work. 5 The following list is not exhaustive: M. L. West, The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 13; idem, The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999); J. Van Seters, “The Primeval Histories of Greece and Israel Com- pared,” ZAW 100 (1988): 1–22; idem, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992); S. Mandell and D. N. Freedman, The Relationship Between Herodotus’ History and Primary History (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 60; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); J. P. Brown, “From Divine Kingship to Dispersal of Power in the Mediterranean City-State,” ZAW 105 (1993): 62–86; idem, Israel and Hellas, vol. 1; vol. 2, Sacred Institutions with Roman Counterparts; vol. 3, The Legacy of Iranian Imperialism and the Individ- ual (BZAW 231, 276, 299; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995, 2000, 2001); F. A. J. Nielsen, The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 251; Copenhagen International Seminar 4; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); S. Noegel, “The Aegean Ogygos of Boeotia and the Biblical Og of Bashan: Reflections of the Same Myth,” ZAW 110 (1998): 411–26. 6 T. C. Eskenazi and E. P. Judd (“Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9–10,” in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period [ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994], 266–85), J. Blenkinsopp (Ezra-Nehemiah, 173–201), and B. Halpern (“Ezra’s Reform and Bilateral Citizenship in Athens and the Mediterranean World,” in Egypt, Israel, and the Ancient Mediterranean World: Studies in Honor of Donald B. Knoppers: Greek Historiography and the Chronicler 629 cal boundary of 332 B.C.E.—Alexander’s conquest of Palestine—has inhibited most scholars from making comparisons with the compositional techniques found in Chronicles. There are, however, a number of features in the Chronicler’s work that may be fruitfully compared with classical writings and Jewish Hellenistic writings. These areas include the development of local histories, the idealization of certain characters, the excerpting of traditional writings, the condensation of older works, the employment of creative imitation or imitatio,7 and the use of genealogies. Of these, I wish to focus on the last. Following R. R. Wilson, I understand a genealogy to refer to “a written or oral expression of the descent of a person or persons from an ancestor or ancestors.”8 Some important features of the Chronicler’s genealogical prologue find analogies in classical prose composition.9 The point is not simply the phenomenon of written genealogies per se, because lineages are found within the Yahwistic and Priestly sources of the Pentateuch; within Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian royal inscriptions; and within pharaonic king lists and priestly writings. More proximate examples, temporally speaking, to the Chronicler’s

Redford [ed. G. N. Knoppers and A. Hirsch; Probleme der Ägyptologie; Leiden: Brill, forthcoming]) draw a series of important comparisons between the situation in postexilic Jerusalem and that of fifth-century Athens. D. Smith-Christopher draws a series of broader (modern) social comparisons (“The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13: A Sociology of the Post-Exilic Judaean Community,” in Second Temple Studies 2, ed. Eskenazi and Richards, 243–65). See also the more general comments of A. Momigliano, who situates the works of both Greek and Hebrew authors in the larger context of the Persian empire (The Classical Foundations of Modern Histori- ography [Sather Classical Lectures 54; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990], 8–24). 7 On this neglected issue, see J. Van Seters, “Creative Imitation in the Hebrew Bible,” SR 29 (2000): 395–409. I would demur, however, from his characterization of the work of the Chronicler as plagiarism (pp. 399–400), rather than as an instance of imitatio. See C. Mitchell, “Transforma- tions in Meaning: Solomon’s Accession Narrative,” JHS 4 (2002–3), http://www.purl.org/jhs; and the introduction to my commentary I Chronicles (AB 12; New York: Doubleday, forthcoming). 8 R. R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (Yale Near Eastern Researches 7; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 9. 9 I agree with a number of recent scholars who have argued that the core (however one defines that) of the genealogies in 1 Chr 1–9 is original to the first edition of the Chronicler’s work. See, e.g., S. Japhet, “Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles,” JBL 98 (1979): 205–18; eadem, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 1–10; H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 37–40; M. Kartveit, Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9 (ConBOT 28; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989). For a different view, see A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler: Its Purpose and Date (Schweich Lec- tures 1938; London: Oxford University Press, 1939); M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (2nd ed.; Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1957), 117–22, 132–33; W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT 21; Tübin- gen: Mohr, 1955), 6–91. 630 Journal of Biblical Literature use of pedigrees include the genealogical lists found among the Safaitic inscriptions of ancient Jordan and North Arabia10 and the Achaemenid royal inscriptions. The ascending linear genealogy of Darius the Great appearing in the Behistun inscription may serve as one example. I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King in Persia, King of countries, son of Hystapes, grandson of Arsames, an Achaemenian. (Behistun inscription, §1.2–3) Saith Darius the King: My father was Hystapes; Hystapes’ father was Arsames; Arsames’ father was Ariaramnes; Ariaramnes’ father was Teispes; Teispes’ father was Achaemenes. (Behistun inscription, §2.1.3–6)11 The latter, a more complete lineage, immediately follows the former, which serves as an introduction to the inscription itself. The issue thus needs to be more narrowly defined: Where can one find parallels to the elaborate system of generational relationships in 1 Chr 1–9, that is, to a group of extensive lineages appearing either as a single work by themselves or as a substantial part of a larger literary work? One hastens to add that the genealogies of 1 Chr 1–9 do not represent a conglomeration of totally unre- lated lineages, but reveal a larger pattern of organization. They begin with the first person, Adam (1 Chr 1:1), list his various descendants in prediluvian and postdiluvian times (1 Chr 1:1–54), focus on the sodalities of Israel (1 Chr 2:1–9:1), and conclude with a tabulation of Jerusalem’s residents during the Persian period.12 The attention devoted to the development of humanity from a single source and the attention devoted to the relationships among a variety of nations establish a context within which to view the origins of the people of Israel. The Israelites are related directly and indirectly to a host of other peoples, most of whom preceded Israel on the world stage.

10 F. V. Winnett, Safaitic Inscriptions from Jordan (Near and Middle East Series 2; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1957); F. V. Winnett, W. L. Reed, et al., Ancient Records from North Arabia (Near and Middle East Series 6; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970); F. V. Winnett and G. L. Harding, Inscriptions from Fifty Safaitic Cairns (Near and Middle East Series 9; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978). 11 My translation follows R. G. Kent, Old Persian (2nd rev. ed.; AOS 33; New Haven: Ameri- can Oriental Society, 1953), 119. 12 Similarly, M. Oeming sees the genealogies as comprising a system of concentric rings (Das wahre Israel: Die ‘genealogische Vorhalle’ 1 Chronik 1–9 [BWANT 128; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1990], 206–10). Cf. M. Noth, Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels (BWANT 4/1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930), 21; A-.M. Brunet, “Les Chroniste et ses sources,” RB 60 (1953): 485; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 38–39; S. J. De Vries, I and II Chronicles (FOTL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 21–26; Kartveit, Motive und Schichten, 110–56; T. Willi, Chronik (BKAT 24/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 7–9. Knoppers: Greek Historiography and the Chronicler 631

a The peoples of the world (1 Chr 1:1–54) b Judah (1 Chr 2:3–4:23) c Simeon and the trans-Jordanian tribes (1 Chr 4:24–5:26) d The tribe of Levi (1 Chr 5:27–6:66 [Eng. 6:1–81]) c' The northern tribes (1 Chr 7:1–40) b' Benjamin (1 Chr 8:1–40) a' The Persian period inhabitants of Jerusalem (1 Chr 9:2–34) As the table shows, the bulk of the genealogical prologue is dominated by one heavily segmented lineage—the descendants of Israel’s twelve sons (1 Chr 2:3–8:40; cf. 1 Chr 2:1–2). Even within this branching system, the stemmata for individual tribes may themselves evince further layers of segmentation. The genealogy for Benjamin’s sons in 1 Chr 7:6–11 is but one example.13 Benjamin Bela Becher Jediael Zemariah Joash Eliezer Elioenai Omri Jeremoth Abijah Anathoth Alemeth Ezbon Uzzi Uzziel Jerimoth Iri Bilhan Jeush Benjamin Ehud Chenaanah Zethan Tarshish Ah\ishah\ar14

Paying close attention to the critical issue of segmentation allows one to focus the search for analogies to the multiple layers of branching lineages found in 1 Chr 2–8. Since these chapters contain both linear and heavily segmented genealogies, one should look for collections of genealogies that contain both linear and segmented genealogies.15 In this respect, the ancient Near Eastern

13 The present text of Chronicles provides three lineages for the Benjaminites: 1 Chr 7:6–11; 8:1–40; and 9:35–44. The last of these parallels 1 Chr 8:29–40. Whether the lineage presented in 1 Chr 7:6–11 was originally a Zebulunite genealogy or whether a genealogy of Zebulun has been lost are legitimate questions, but these questions need not be debated here. See Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 65–66; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 169–70. 14 One should also call attention to heavily segmented portions of the Judahite genealogies (G. N. Knoppers, “‘Great Among His Brothers’”: But Who Is He? Heterogeneity in the Composi- tion of Judah,” JHS 3 (2000–2001), http://www.purl.org/jhs; idem, “Intermarriage, Social Complex- ity, and Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of Judah,” JBL 120 (2001): 15–30. 15 Both kinds of genealogies are found in earlier biblical writings; see A. Malamat, “King Lists 632 Journal of Biblical Literature parallels adduced to the lineages in Chronicles are not directly germane, because these comprise individual lists (or genealogies) and do not represent large collections of multilinear and linear genealogies.16 The collections of genealogies—both segmented and linear—found in the Yahwistic and Priestly sources of the Pentateuch are more helpful in under- standing the composition of the genealogical prologue in Chronicles. The Chronicler, like the authors of the Yahwistic and Priestly writings, is much more interested in matters genealogical than the Deuteronomic and Deuterono- mistic authors are. Some of the Chronicler’s lineages are directly borrowed from those found within earlier biblical sources, especially those found in the Priestly writing. There is no doubt that the Chronicler’s theology has also been influenced by Priestly thought. Yet, from a literary perspective, the Yahwistic and Priestly works are not particularly helpful as analogies to the genealogical prologue. The short lineages the Yahwist employs in the course of his work lend structure to his stories (Gen 4:1–2, 17–22; 9:18–19; 19:37–38; 22:20–24; 29:31–35; 30:4–5, 7–16, 20–21, 24).17 The Priestly writers are more systematic in their genealogical speculations. They employ major genealogies, often punctuated by the formula “these are the generations” (twdlwt hla), as a frame for groups of narratives and lists dealing with the primeval and ancestral eras (e.g., Gen 5:1–32*; 10:1–32; 11:10–27; 25:12–17, 19–20; 35:22b–26; 36:1–5, 9–14).18 In the Priestly work, the narratives about the ancestors, the plagues, and the exodus culminate in the bestowal of divine law at Sinai.19 The latter knows no of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies,” JAOS 88 (1968): 168–73; idem, “Tribal Societies: Biblical Genealogies and African Lineage Systems,” European Journal of Sociology 14 (1973): 126–36. 16 On the composite nature of a number of these works, see Wilson, Genealogy and History, 87– 114. Whether some of these works should be classified as genealogies at all, rather than as lists, has been questioned by R. S. Hess, who draws formal contrasts between certain pentateuchal genealogies and the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian King Lists (“The Genealogies of Genesis 1–11 and Comparative Literature,” Bib 70 [1990]: 252–53). The Mesopotamian lineages are not segmented or multilinear in their present form. Within these lists, in fact, some contemporary dynasties have been made sequential so as to create one continuous stemma. 17 M. D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies (2nd ed.; SNTSMS 8; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 4–14. 18 The formula itself appears in Gen 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2; Num 3:1; cf. Gen 2:4; 5:1. See further Johnson (Biblical Genealogies, 14–36), although I do not agree with all of his conclusions. 19 Where the Priestly work ends has become a matter of keen debate among contemporary Continental scholars. O. Kaiser has proposed, for example, that the original Priestly writing ends with Lev 9:24 (Studien zur Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments [FB 90; Würzburg: Echter, 2000]). In American circles, much more material in Leviticus and Numbers has been traditionally attributed to the Priestly writers. See R. E. Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative (HSM 22; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981); B. A. Levine, Leviticus (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989); idem, Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Knoppers: Greek Historiography and the Chronicler 633 parallel in the Chronicler’s work, which asserts the validity of Sinaitic legislation.20 Among the Priestly materials dealing with the oppression in Egypt, the plagues, the exodus, the stipulations about the tabernacle, the apparel of the priests, the consecration of the priests, the offerings, and the ordination of Aaron and his sons, genealogies become relatively infrequent (e.g., Exod 1:1–5; 6:14–25; Num 3:1–3).21 What one finds in Chronicles, however, are large collections of lineages standing by themselves. In short, one can readily acknowledge the Chronicler’s indebtedness to the Yahwistic work and especially the Priestly writing, while recognizing that the author has moved beyond these earlier works in a number of different ways. Over half of the genealogies in 1 Chr 1–8 have no biblical source.22 Within the larger book, the genealogies function as an introduction or prelude to a much longer narrative account of monarchical history. In my judgment, the closest counterparts to the phenomenon of 1 Chr 1–9 may be found in the works of the Greek genealogists. The mass of genealogical literature from the ancient Aegean world, even though it survives only in frag- mentary and testimonial form, was originally quite considerable.23 Genealogi- cal writings were one of the earliest types of prose written in ancient Greece.24

Commentary (AB 4; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993); J. Milgrom, Numbers (JPS Torah Com- mentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990); idem, Leviticus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991); J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994). 20 In narrating the course of the monarchy, Chronicles rates royal performance with reference to Mosaic precedent or Sinaitic legislation on at least thirty occasions (1 Chr 15:15; 16:40; 21:29; 22:12, 13; 2 Chr 1:3; 5:10; 6:16; 8:13; 12:1; 14:3; 15:3; 17:9; 19:10; 23:18; 24:6, 9; 25:4; 30:5, 16; 31:3, 4, 21; 33:8; 34:14, 15, 19; 35:6, 12, 26). On one occasion an Aaronic precedent (itself attributed to a divine command), “according to their custom at the directive of Aaron their ancestor, as Yhwh the God of Israel had commanded him” (yhla hwhy whwx r`ak !hyba @rha dyb !fp`mk lar`y) is cited as determinative of how the priests are to enter the temple (1 Chr 24:19). 21 Some wonder whether Exod 6:14–25 may be part of a larger supplement or addition to the P narrative (M. Noth, Exodus [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962], 58–62). 22 The situation with the list of Jerusalem’s Persian-period residents in 1 Chr 9 is more complex. Some scholars think that the author of this chapter has borrowed much of this material (vv. 2–17) from Neh 11. I develop the view that the authors of both 1 Chr 9 and Neh 11 drew from a similar source but developed this source in quite different ways. The evidence provided by LXX Neh 11–12, which is often substantially shorter than the MT, points in the same direction (G. N. Knoppers, “Sources, Revisions, and Editions: The Lists of Jerusalem’s Residents in MT and LXX Nehemiah 11 and 1 Chronicles 9,” Text 20 [2000]: 141–68). 23 West, Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, 1–11; R. Thomas, Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens (Cambridge Studies in Oral and Literate Culture 18; Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1989), 155–95. 24 F. Jacoby, “Über die Entwicklung der griechischen Historiographie,” Klio 9 (1909): 80–123 (reprinted in his Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtsschreibung [ed. H. Bloch; Leiden: Brill, 1956], 16–64); C. W. Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 4–12. 634 Journal of Biblical Literature

According to Plato, when Socrates asked the famous sophist Hippias, “What are the subjects which the Spartans gladly hear from you?,” Hippias replied: They listen with the greatest pleasure to the genealogies of their heroes and men, to the settlement of tribes, and how cities were founded of old and, in a word, to everything concerning antiquarian knowledge. (Plato, Hp. mai. 285d) In Hippias’s answer, both the general interest in former times (literally, “archaeology”) and the particular interest in the genealogies of heroes and of men are remarkable. The regard of ancient Greeks for matters genealogical must be connected to the significance they attributed to origins and the original ancestor in determining the character of future generations.25 Prestige, status, even moral character might be derived from the original progenitor, preferably legendary, heroic, or divine. Even in Thucydides’ work, in which there is not much explicit genealogizing, speeches to the troops contain many appeals to their fathers and the fame of their ancestors.26 Whether one had the credentials to serve in certain public offices was determined to no small extent by one’s pedigree. Peisistratus reportedly wrote Solon, the sixth-century Athenian politician and poet, that since he (Peisistratus) was a descendant of Codrus, the last king of Athens, he was rightfully tyrant of the Athenians (Diog. Laert. 1.53). According to Herodotus (5.22; 8.137–39), Alexander I of Macedon (ca. 498– 454 B.C.E.) was not allowed to compete in the Olympic Games until he con- vinced officials that he was a Hellene by presenting his genealogy in which he descended from Temenos, the Herakleid king of Argos. One is reminded of the comment in the list of Ezra 2 that those priests returning from exile, who could not prove their priestly pedigree were barred from serving as priests.27 These officiants were “exiled (Wla}goy“w") from the priesthood” (Ezra 2:63//Neh 7:64). Plato’s very criticism (Tht. 174e ff.) of the infatuation with and reliance on lineages is itself indicative of the continuing influence of genealogical considerations in his time.28 Many of the major genealogical works in ancient Greece date to the sixth and the fifth centuries B.C.E., but the interest in genealogy was neither a new nor a temporary phenomenon. One feature of the Homeric interest in the past

25 B. A. van Groningen, In the Grip of the Past: An Essay on an Aspect of Greek Thought (Lei- den: Brill, 1953), 47–61. 26 S. Hornblower, “Introduction,” in Greek Historiography (ed. S. Hornblower; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 9. 27 H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco: Word, 1985), 36–37; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 91–92. 28 Plato’s criticism may have more to do with the proposition that the presence of some illus- trious figures within one’s lineage determines one’s present character than it does with the verifia- bility of the lineage itself (Thomas, Oral Tradition and Written Record, 174–75). Knoppers: Greek Historiography and the Chronicler 635 is a concern with genealogy (e.g., Il. 5.533–60; 20.215–40 [Aeneas]; 6.153–206 [Glaucus]; Od. 11.235–330).29 Writing much later, in the second century B.C.E., Polybius apologizes for the austerity of his work, because most historians take a broader approach and attract a wider public than he does: those “fond of hear- ing (stories) (filhvkoon)” are drawn by genealogical manner, while “the curious and (fond of) the uncommon” (polupravgmona kai; perittovn) are drawn by the kind of history that concerns itself with colonies, foundations, and kinships (Hist. 9.1.1–4). The historian who exercises methodological self-discipline and confines his inquiry to the actions of monarchs, cities, and nations—so, for example, Polybius himself—attracts a much smaller audience (Hist. 9.1.5–6).30 Capitalizing on the interest in past generations and their filiations, genealogists produced collections of lineages as works in and of themselves or used such genealogies to introduce and structure larger works. In pre-Herodotean Greece, writers established stemmata for Greek noble families, who claimed descent from heroes and gods in the mythological past.31 Two Spartan royal houses, for example, were officially said to have descended from Herakles, at least by the time of Tyrtaeus.32 In the Phoronis, a mythographic work by Hel- lanicus of Lesbos, a segmented, multilinear system of lineages seems to dominate.33 The author sketches separately the stories of each one of the principal descendants. As in the Chronicler’s segmented genealogies of Israel’s sons, Hellanicus finishes the account of the offspring of one son before starting on the offspring of another.34 By pursuing this multilinear system of organization, Hellanicus evidently thought that he could bring some semblance of order to the chaos of Greek mythology.35 Current social relationships or political hierar- chies may be claimed, explained, or ratified by recourse to pedigree. Pro-

29 Hornblower, “Introduction,” 9. 30 Disparate comments from Greek and Roman authors show that the nature, style, limits, and purpose of historical writing were subject to ongoing discussions (e.g., Herodotus 1.1; 2.29, 99, 113, 147; Thuc. 1.1–23; Arist., Poet. 1451B1–32; Rh. 1.1360A30–36; Cic., De Or. 2.62, 145; 3.211; Leg. 1.5; Diod. Sic., 1.1–5; Sall. Iug., 4; Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 1–2; Livy 1.1; Quint., Inst. 2.4.2; Tac., Ann. 4.32–33; Plut., De Alex. fort. 1.3; Clem. Al., Strom. 1.15, 69; Marcellin., Vit. Thuc. 41). 31 T. S. Brown, The Greek Historians (Civilization and Society: Studies in Social, Economic, and Cultural History; Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 1973), 3–18; West, Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, 8–9. 32 One version of their genealogies is recorded by Herodotus (7.204; 8.131). 33 L. I. C. Pearson, Early Ionian Historians (Oxford: Clarendon, 1939), 152–235; cf. F. Jacoby, Griechische Historiker (Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller, 1956), 268. 34 Judah (1 Chr 4:1–23), Simeon (4:24–43), Reuben (5:1–10), Gad (5:11–17), Half-Manasseh (5:23–24), Levi (5:27–6:66), Issachar (7:1–5), Benjamin (7:6–11), Dan (7:12), Naphtali (7:13), Man- asseh (7:14–19), Ephraim (7:20–29), Asher (7:30–40), and Benjamin (8:1–40). On the reconstruction of a short genealogy for Dan (1 Chr 7:12), see my I Chronicles (forthcoming). 35 The segmented technique of the author of the much later (second century C.E.) work the Bibliotheca, falsely attributed to Apollodorus of Athens, is similar (Pearson, Early Ionian Histori- ans, 159–70). 636 Journal of Biblical Literature nouncements made about events in the past might be taken seriously as to what should obtain in the present. Details about settlements and kinship relationships may strike modern readers as inconsequential, but such particulars can establish precedents for later times.36 The Athenians, for example, could cite their participation in the Trojan expedition depicted in Homer (Il. 2.557–67) to show that they had as good a claim to Sigeum as the Mytilenians did (Herodo- tus 5.94).37 Those Benjaminites living in the late Persian–early Hellenistic period could cite the Benjaminite lineages in Chronicles to lay claim to their habita- tion of sites not registered as belonging to them in earlier (biblical) texts. The Benjaminite segmented genealogy of 1 Chr 8:8–12 mentions that one of the descendants of Shah\araim (not otherwise attested) named Elpaal built Lud and Ono (1 Chr 8:12), sites that lay beyond the traditional territory ascribed to Ben- jamin (Josh 18:11–28). Lud (or Lod) and Ono appear among the sites associated with the repatriates (Ezra 2:33//Neh 7:37). Lod and Ono are, in fact, only mentioned in late biblical literature (Neh 6:2; 11:35; cf. 1 Macc 11:34).38 It would seem that segments of the Benjaminite population (here associated with Elpaal) migrated to the northwest during the Persian era. Political stability, trade, and agriculture may all have been factors in this movement.39 At least, this would explain the existence of a significant Jewish population in the Modein area during the Hellenistic era. The depth and breadth of genealogical interest depended on the purposes of the individual writer. In some cases, genealogies were pursued for individual lines. The titles of some of the mythographic works of the fifth-century writer Hellanicus of Lesbos—the Deucalioneia, the Phoronis, and the Atlantis—indi- cate that this fifth-century writer sought to work out genealogies for individual

36 The connection between bloodlines and territory also exists within the Chronicler’s genealogies (e.g., the lineages of Judah in 1 Chr 2:3–4:23) (Knoppers, “Intermarriage,” 15–30). Indeed, the issue of land should not be underestimated in assessing the Chronicler’s theological outlook (S. Japhet, “People and Land in the Restoration Period,” in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit [ed. G. Strecker; GTA 25; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983], 103–25). 37 West, Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, 10–11. 38 The author of Neh 6:2 seems to assume that the “Ono Valley” (/n/a t["q]Bi) lies beyond the territory of Yehud (Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 266). Some contend that Yehud included Lod and Ono within its northwest borders (E. Stern, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332 B.C. [Warminster: Aris & Phillips; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982], 245–49; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 34, 253–55). But, assuming that the sites in the list of (re)patriates refer to their destinations, as opposed to their ancestral homes, it is not necessary to hold that all of these places were located within the confines of Yehud. Some of the people in the list of Ezra 2//Neh 7 could have lived within communities that lay outside of Yehud’s borders. 39 O. Lipschits, “The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modi>in and Its Vicinity” (in Hebrew), Cathedra 85 (1997): 7–32. Knoppers: Greek Historiography and the Chronicler 637 families from a particular mythological figure.40 But already in the sixth century, the poet responsible for the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women put together a comprehensive collection of heroic genealogies in five books.41 At the end of the sixth century or the beginning of the fifth, Hecataeus of Miletus composed a mythographic work, comprising at least four books, on the genealogies of heroes.42 Genealogists in the fifth century such as Acusilaus of Argos43 and Damastes of Sigaeum44 also composed large collections of genealogies involving a number of different stemmata. In his (in)famous preface to the Genehlogivai, Hecataeus writes that he set out to establish the truth “for the tales of the Greeks are many and ridiculous” (oiJ ga;r @Ellhvnwn lovgoi polloiv te kai; geloi'ai).45 One of Hecataeus’s aims was to sort out the plethora of stories dealing with the mythic and heroic past by organizing them in a fixed chronological order. Confronting disconnected and heterogeneous traditions, writers such as Hecataeus collated older materials,

40 Jacoby, Griechische Historiker, 262–87. 41 The work, called the Gunaikw'n Katavlogo", or simply the !Hoi'ai (derived from the recur- rent refrain, h] oi{h [“the like”], which marked the beginning of a section), was designed as a contin- uation of Hesiod’s Theogony, but had its own proem. West dates the completion of the work to between 560 and 520 B.C.E. (see R. Merkelbach and M. L. West, Fragmenta Hesiodea [Oxford: Clarendon, 1967]; West, Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, 130–37). 42 The work is variously referred to as the Genealogies (Genehlogivai), the Histories (@Isto- rivai), and the Herology (@Hrwlogiva). Fewer than forty fragments remain from this author (G. Nenci, Hecataei Milesii Fragmenta [Florence: Nuova Italia, 1954]; F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker [Berlin: Weidmann; Leiden: Brill, 1923–58], frgs. 1–15, esp. 1 [pp. 1–47] [hereafter FGH]). Cf. Herodotus 5.36, 125–26. Since the work of Nenci and Jacoby, a few new fragments attributed to Hecataeus have been published (H. J. Mette, “Die ‘Kleinen’ griechischen Historiker heute,” Lustrum 21 [1978]: 5–6; idem, “Die ‘Kleinen’ griechischen Historiker heute,” Lustrum 27 [1985]: 33). On the historical context of Hecataeus and his connections to the aristo- cratic elite of Miletus, see Pearson, Early Ionian Historians, 25–106; Jacoby, Griechische His- toriker, 185–237; K. von Fritz, Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967), 1:48–76; 2:32–53. More briefly, S. Usher, The Historians of Greece and Rome (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1969), 1–3. 43 FGH 2; Cicero, De or. 2.53; von Fritz, Griechische Geschichtsschreibung, 1:77–103; 2:54– 78. According to Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1–13), Acusilaus lived before the Persian Wars (490–480/79 B.C.E.). 44 Said to be a disciple of Hellanicus and a near contemporary of Herodotus. The title of one of his works was Ancestors of Those Who Fought at Troy (FGH 5; von Fritz, Griechische Geschichtsschreibung, 1:518–20, 525–26; 2:222–23, 244; cf. Strabo, Geographia 13.1.4; 14.6.4; Val. Max. 8.13). 45 FGH 1 F 1. That Hecataeus’s own work contains a variety of fabulous elements suggests that his purpose was not to explain away the absurd and mythical elements of stories he inherited from the past, but rather to make some sense of the many contradictions among them. See further Nenci, Hecataei Milesii, xxv; Fornara, Nature of History, 5–6. For a different view, emphasizing Hecataeus’s rationalistic tendencies, see von Fritz, Griechische Geschichtsschreibung, 1:73; R. Drews, The Greek Accounts of Eastern History (Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 1973), 16–19. 638 Journal of Biblical Literature placed stories in a series, and arranged them within a larger genealogical order. To resolve contradictions that arose from multiple stories about one hero, genealogists might posit more than one hero by the same name, but living at different times.46 The operative assumption was that a less well known person’s name had been forgotten, perhaps because of the fame of his more accom- plished namesake.47 Another device involved introducing new members into a line of succession to reconcile contradictory legends and to fill up missing generations.48 Marital and kinship ties (many of which were artificial), migrations, and settlements of Greek heroes were used to link generations together and to explain the alliances or enmities of various individuals and groups. The rationalizing approach employed by these writers in reconstructing the history of past generations may be compared with the systematic approach one finds within 1 Chr 1–9. These chapters string together lineages for a variety of tribes, or portions thereof (e.g., Half-Manasseh in 1 Chr 5:23–26), as well as for certain groups within tribes such as priests (1 Chr 5:27–41; 6:35–38), Levit- ical singers (1 Chr 6:1–33), and Davidic kings (1 Chr 3:1–24).49 In the last instance, the genealogist relates the group genetically to the sodality’s eponymous ancestor (2:3–5, 9–17) and presents David’s seed as pivotal to Judah’s legacy by situating the group at the center of the tribe’s various lineages.50 a Lineages of Judah (1 Chr 2:1-55) b Descendants of David (1 Chr 3:1-24) a' Lineages of Judah (1 Chr 4:1-23)51 In spite of the detailed attention given to specific groups and families within Greek and Hebrew traditions, the larger focus is national in both cases. The author of Chronicles situates the appearance of Israel and his sons in the

46 Brown, Greek Historians, 4 (with reference to Timaeus). 47 L. I. C. Pearson, The Local Historians of Attica (Philological Monographs of the American Philological Association 11; Philadelphia: American Philological Association, 1942), 10–11. 48 Pearson, Early Ionian Historians, 161, 210, 224. Whether the calculation of Herodotus (2.142) of three generations per century was standard is unclear. 49 The Chronicler’s universal genealogy also contains an Edomite king list (1 Chr 1:43–51a) and an Edomite chieftain list (1 Chr 1:51b–54), borrowed (and edited) from Gen 36:31–39 and 36:40–43a, respectively. 50 The same pattern can be found in other contexts within early Judaism and early Christian- ity. In the genealogy bestowed upon Judith (8:1), for instance, her pedigree is ultimately traced to Simeon in the ancestral age (Jdt 9:2; cf. Tob 1:1; Jub. 4:1–33; Matt 1:1–2; Rom 11:1; Phil 3:4–5; b. Pesah\ 62b; b. Qidd. 69a–79b). In some cases, however, the Sinaitic age is determinative (e.g., Ezra 7:1–5). 51 See further G. N. Knoppers, “The Davidic Genealogy: Some Contextual Considerations from the Ancient Mediterranean World,” Transeu 22 (2001): 35–50. Knoppers: Greek Historiography and the Chronicler 639 context of the development of other peoples (1 Chr 1), but he concentrates on the Israelite tribes themselves and their interrelationships (1 Chr 2–8). Simi- larly, the ancient Greek genealogists focused on what they considered to be Greek lines of descent from various heroes and deities. In their work they may have attempted to be pan-Hellenic in their coverage, but they apparently did not pay great attention to the lineages of barbarian peoples. In this respect, comparison with the work of the Greek genealogists sheds light on the purposes according to which the Chronicler’s genealogical prologue was composed. The primary issue at stake is not so much the definition of the ethnos over against all other external groups as it is the development of the ethnos and the interrelationships of the various groups who make up the ethnos.52 Because genealogies in the classical world were composed of names that were significant and designed to support the nation’s traditions and speculations, it is not surprising that they were interlaced with digressions explaining what particular groups did, what battles they fought, or where their descendants settled.53 In the linear descending ancestry for Philaios, attributed to Pherecydes of Athens, an early-fifth-century author, one finds three brief narrative markers. Philaios the son of Aias resides in Athens. Of him is born Daiklos, of him Epi- lykos, of him Akestoµr, of him Ageµnoµr, of him Olios, of him Lykeµs, of him Tophoµn, of him Laios, of him Agameµstoµr, of him Tisandros, of him Miltiadeµs,54 of him Hippokleideµs, during whose archonship the Panathenaea were established, 55 and of him Miltiadeµs, who colonized the Cherroneµsos (Chersonesus).56

52 A point also stressed by K. G. Hoglund, “The Chronicler as Historian: A Comparativist Perspective,” in The Chronicler as Historian (ed. M. P. Graham, K. G. Hoglund, and S. L. McKenzie; JSOTSup 238; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997), 19–29. 53 West, Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, 29. 54 So Thomas (Oral Tradition and Written Record, 162) and others. The edition of Jacoby (FGH 3 F 2) prefaces “who was archon among the Athenians” (speaking of Tisandros). 55 This common restoration, which seems to be based on the testimony of Herodotus (6.34–41, 103; 38.1), is uncertain. On the text-critical complexities of reconstructing the Philaid genealogy and its sequence of proper names, see the detailed comments of G. Mussies, “Parallels to Matthew’s Version of the Pedigree of Jesus,” NovT 28 (1986): 32–47; and Thomas, Oral Tradi- tion and Written Record, 161–73. 56 Marcellin., Vit. Thuc. 2–4 (= FGH 3 F 2). According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 1.13.1 [= FGH 3 T 7]), Pherecydes of Athens wrote many historical works of a mythical and genealogical nature. In this respect, Pherecydes could be called both a historian (iJstorikov") and a genealogist (genealovgo"; FGH 3 F 1a, 2, 8, 18a, 21, 22a, 64a, 66, 86, 95, 101, 115a). E. Gabba dis- cusses Dionysius’s use of sources, including Pherecydes (Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome [Sather Classical Lectures 54; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991], 1–22). 640 Journal of Biblical Literature

While positing a fourteen-generation line from Miltiadeµs the colonizer back to Philaios, whose own father, the hero Aias (Latin Ajax), was said to be the greatest of all Greek warriors after Achilles (Homer, Il. 2.768–69), the genealogist calls attention to what he considers to be important topographical and historical details. Again, one can find formal parallels with Chronicles, which contains a number of anecdotes dealing with settlements, invasions, migrations, exiles, and wars.57 In some cases, narrative sketches comprise a significant portion of a tribe’s genealogy. In the material pertaining to Simeon (1 Chr 4:24–43), for example, notes about population increase (vv. 27, 38), settlement (vv. 28–33), migrations (vv. 39–40), and war (vv. 41, 42–43) dominate the genealogy. Admittedly, there is also a difference of degree between the two sets of national traditions. Some of the circumstantial tales are much longer and more fabulous in classical writings than they are in Chronicles. Indeed, the original length of many of the Greek genealogical works must have been much longer than 1 Chr 1–9.58 But the basic pattern of interlacing lineages with annotations is found in both. Moreover, such narrative excursions can serve a larger purpose by making chronology complement genealogy. An event alluded to in a digression can be made to correlate to a specific point in a particular lineage, which is, after all, a history of generations. So, for example, Hellanicus was one of the first to work out the chronological implications of the genealogies he cre- ated.59 Or, to return to the material pertaining to Simeon, the references to the settlements up to the time of King David (1 Chr 4:31) and to the registration during the reign of King Hezekiah (1 Chr 4:41) punctuate the larger tribal lineage.60 In this manner, narrative comments help to define the vague chronology inherent within the genealogies themselves.61

57 E.g., 1 Chr 1:10; 2:3, 7, 22–23; 4:9–10, 27, 38–43; 5:1–2, 9–10. Based on the comparative evidence, there is no inherent need to excise such comments as later additions and glosses. Indeed, the content of these digressions reveals many of the same themes found in the coverage of the monarchy (R. B. Dillard, “Reward and Punishment in Chronicles: The Theology of Immediate Retribution,” WTJ 46 [1984]: 164–72). 58 Pherecydes of Athens, for instance, is credited with authoring a work divided by later edi- tors into some ten books (F. Jacoby, “The First Athenian Prose Writer,” Mnemos 13 [1947]: 13–64; repr. in his Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtsschreibung, 100–143). 59 Pearson, Early Ionian Historians, 232; von Fritz, Griechische Geschichtsschreibung, 1:476–522; 2.221–45; cf. J. H. Schreiner, Hellanikos, Thukydides and the Era of Kimon (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1997), 11–17. Whether the chronological interest of Hellanicus is as pro- nounced as some scholars have thought is questioned by Thomas, Oral Tradition and Written Record, 185. 60 Other chronological annotations may be found in 1 Chr 1:43; 3:4; 4:41, 43; 5:10, 17, 22, 26, 36, 41; 6:16–17; 9:1, 2. Along with many commentators, I would transpose the anecdote of 1 Chr 5:36 (“it was he [Azariah] who officiated as a priest in the Temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem”) to 1 Chr 5:35. See 1 Kgs 4:2. 61 If a (linear) genealogy is a history of generations, the synchronization of a known event with a person in a particular lineage defines both the event and the person. Knoppers: Greek Historiography and the Chronicler 641

In constructing a series of different segmented genealogies, the issue of beginnings is an important consideration. In one case, a Greek genealogical writer traced different stemmata back to the first man. In the Genealogivai of Acusilaus of Argos, Acusilaus made Phoroneous the first man (prw'ton a[nqrw- pon) and evidently put the Phoroneid stemma, in which he subsumed the Pelasgid, before the Deukalionid.62 In one of his works, Hellanicus traced the genealogy of Codrus, the seventeenth and final monarch of Athens, through Hellen back to Deucalion (the so-called “Greek Noah”) and Pyrrha.63 One finds, of course, a similar impulse present in the Priestly work and in Chroni- cles. Various lines are traced back to Noah and ultimately to the primal human being (Gen 5:1; 1 Chr 1:1).64 Very much related to the issue of beginnings are the issues of placement and coverage. The sequence of genealogies and the amount of coverage a writer devotes to a particular lineage are undoubtedly affected by the author’s own assumptions, geographical setting, social circumstances, interests, and preferences.65 One need only compare the order and space allocated to the various tribes in 1 Chr 2:3–8:40 with the order and space allocated to the various tribes in early Yahwistic poetry to see the same factors at work in Israelite and Judean traditions. In the Blessing of Moses, for example, Reuben appears in the initial position as the firstborn (Deut 33:6), but Joseph wins the most lavish praise and receives the most extensive coverage (Deut 33:13–17). Judah and Benjamin receive one verse each (Deut 33:7, 12).66 In the Blessing of Jacob (Gen 49:8–12), Judah fares better than he does in the Blessing of Moses, but Levi is treated together with Simeon (Gen 49:5–7). As in the Blessing of Moses, Reuben appears in the initial position as the firstborn (Gen 49:3–4). Joseph receives extensive coverage as well as generous blessings (Gen 49:23–27).67 In

62 FGH 2 F 23a. This is not to say that his genealogical work began with the first man, as Chronicles does. The work of Acusilaus seems to have begun with a theogony (FGH 2 F 1), as did some of the works of other genealogists. 63 In FGH 4 F 125, Jacoby attributes the long passage to “Nachkommen des Aiolos. Argonau- tika (DEUKALIWNEIA),” the descendants of Aeolus: Argonautika (Deucalioneia), but he later assigns it to Hellanicus’s local history, the Atthis (FGH 323a F 23). 64 A different approach seems to be taken in the Catalogue of Women, which is punctuated by several independent starting points introduced by the refrain, h] oi{h. This refrain (“the like”) resumes the discussion of a collateral branch and does not inaugurate the presentation of a line extending back to the original progenitor (West, Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, 39). 65 The issue is not simply the reliability of tradition, but the malleability of that tradition in changing circumstances. “Greek ideas about the past were reworked in response to a ‘constantly shifting present’” (Hornblower, “Introduction,” 5). 66 Levi receives, however, high praise (Deut 33:8–11). 67 F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (SBLDS 21; Mis- soula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 69–122; B. Halpern, The Emergence of Israel in Canaan (SBLMS 29; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 109–63. 642 Journal of Biblical Literature contrast, the author of the genealogies in Chronicles privileges three tribes with position and extensive coverage: Judah, Levi, and Benjamin. Each of these tribes, especially the first two, plays a prominent role in the Chronicler’s presentation of monarchical history.68 In the estimation of the Chronicler, the patriarch Judah “became great among his brothers” (1 Chr 5:2), and it is there- fore Judah, not Reuben, who appears first in the Chronicler’s genealogical system. Judah, in fact, receives by far the most extensive coverage of any tribe (1 Chr 2:1–4:23).69 Within this larger genealogical arrangement, Levi takes the central position and receives the second most extensive coverage of any tribe (1 Chr 5:27–6:66). Finally, Benjamin appears last and receives the third most extensive coverage (1 Chr 8:1–40).70 Issues of order and coverage are important considerations also in assessing the work of the Greek genealogists. In this respect, the perspective and approach of the mid-fifth-century author Pherecydes of Athens are worthy of consideration. Like the poet responsible for the Catalogue of Women and like Acusilaus of Argos, Pherecydes attempted to treat different genealogies together.71 Unlike Acusilaus, Pherecydes apparently gave pride of place to the Attic adopted hero Aias. After the Aiakids came the Argive and Agenorid stemmata, and after them the Deukalionid, Aspid, and Atlantid.72 The Catalogue of Women presents yet another point of view. The author begins with the descendants of Deucalion (books 1–2), proceeds to the descendants of Io, to whom he accords by far the largest amount of space (books 2–3), continues with the descendants of Pelasgus, Arkas, Atlantis, Atlas (books 3 and 4), and Pelops (book 4), and ends with Twilight of the Heroes (book 5).73

68 In his coverage of the aftermath of the division, the Chronicler repeatedly states that Ben- jamin remained with Judah (2 Chr 11:1, 3, 12, 23) (G. N. Knoppers, “Rehoboam in Chronicles: Vil- lain or Victim?” JBL 109 [1990]: 423–40). On the situation in the Deuteronomistic History, see G. N. Knoppers, The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam, vol. 1 of Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies (HSM 52; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 135–223. 69 The Chronicler recognizes that Reuben was the firstborn of Israel’s sons (1 Chr 2:1; 5:1), but distinguishes firstborn status from birthright. The former does not lead ineluctably to the latter (G. N. Knoppers, “The Preferential Status of the Eldest Son Revoked?” in Rethinking the Founda- tions: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters [ed. S. L. McKenzie and T. Römer; BZAW 294; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2000], 115–26). 70 Much of the Benjaminite genealogy pertaining to the descendants of Jeiel (an ancestor of Saul; 1 Chr 8:29–40) is paralleled in 1 Chr 9:35–44. 71 FGH 3 (pp. 58–104); Jacoby, “First Athenian Prose Writer,” 110–24. See also P. Dräger, Stilistische Untersuchungen zu Pherekydes von Athen: Ein Beitrag zur ältesten ionischen Prosa (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1995). 72 West, Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, 46. 73 Hecataeus may have also placed the Deukalionids first (Pearson, Early Ionian Historians, 10). The overall order of stemmata in the Bibliotheke, falsely attributed to Apollodorus of Athens, is similar in its arrangement of genealogies. One speaks about the basic sequence of genealogies in Knoppers: Greek Historiography and the Chronicler 643

In one of his remarks about these earlier authors, Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1.16) comments about how often Hellanicus disagrees with Acusilaus about the genealogies and how often Acusilaus corrects Hesiod. That ancient authors present so many different opinions should not be surprising. Their works did not consist of collections of facts about remote periods that each writer pas- sively acquired. Notwithstanding their appearance as sober collections of traditional data, genealogies can manifest significant creativity. Each author assembled, arranged, combined, shaped, and augmented traditional materials in line with his own standards and conceptions. Whether in the Greek or the Judean arena, whether in poetic verse or in prose, each literary work represents a particular construction made by a particular author in a particular time from a particular vantage point. Even if one were to argue that the Chronicler was much more conservative than his Greek counterparts in that the Chronicler worked with written materials as opposed to oral traditions, the basic point remains the same. Each writer was attempting to create an intelligible network of lineages that would fit his own priorities and reconcile, if not select from, available traditions. We have been discussing genealogical works as a whole, collections of lineages whose outlines reflect deliberate attempts at rationalization and national organization. But genealogy can also be a prelude to history. A system of genealogies may not be an end in and of itself. In the book of Chronicles the genealogies appear as an introduction to the monarchy. Is there any such parallel to this phenomenon in the ancient classical world? It has to be acknowl- edged that juxtaposing a large network of genealogies with a long sequence of narratives in the context of a single historiographic work is a rarity; however, the Troika, authored by Hellanicus, may offer an analogy. As reconstructed by modern scholars, the Troika was an extensive work, perhaps comprising more than two books.74 The first book of the Troika contained genealogies of many prominent Greeks and Trojans, while the second book dealt with the Trojan war. These two books may have been followed by (unattested) third and fourth books describing the wanderings of heroes, such as Aeneas and Odysseus. Whether there were such third and fourth volumes in Hellanicus’s work need not detain us here. What is important is the use of genealogies, as in 1 Chr 1–9, as a prelude to a longer narrative account of a given period or war. One is reminded of Pearson’s comment that a “writer with a taste for genealogy, such as Hellanicus was, could not tell the story of the war without first explaining the

the Bibliotheke. There are, of course, sections of this much later work that have no known counter- part in the Catalogue of Women (West, Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, 31–44). 74 In a number of details, Hellanicus and the author of the Bibliotheke seem to agree (Pear- son, Early Ionian Historians, 181–82, with references). 644 Journal of Biblical Literature ancestry of those who took a prominent part in it.”75 The genealogies provide vital information to the readers or hearers about the identity of the persons introduced. If so, this would parallel the purpose many scholars ascribe to the genealogies in Chronicles. These lineages introduce readers to the Israelites— their identity, their land, and their internal kinship relationships.76 There is a another way in which comparison with classical antiquity may illumine the internal dynamics of the Chronicler’s genealogies. In the lineages of 1 Chr 1–9 significant attention is given to the ancient past. By its very nature, each segment in the Chronicler’s sytem of Israelite genealogies begins with the ancestral age. Significant attention is also devoted to the monarchy, especially the united monarchy, both in the genealogies themselves and in the narrative tangents. Very few of the genealogies actually extend into the late Persian period, the time in which the author wrote.77 Many scholars have found this puzzling. In an Achaemenid or early Hellenistic context, the beginning of the Second Temple period, why begin a Priestly genealogy in the age of the patri- archs and matriarchs, extend it through the monarchy, only to end it well before the author’s own time?78 Even more striking examples may be found in the lineages of the Levitical musicians. The author of 1 Chr 6:16–33 composes ascending genealogies for three phratries of choristers, beginning with the time of David and extending back to the time of their eponymous ancestor, Levi, and the eponymous ancestor of the nation (Israel). The lineage provided for the Qohathite singer Heman traces his ancestry through Samuel(!) back to Levi and Israel. These were the ones stationed, along with their sons: from the descendants of Qohath79—Heman the singer, son of Joel, son of Samuel, son of Elqanah,

75 Pearson, Early Ionian Historians, 176. 76 Hence, they constitute an introduction to the story of the monarchy (S. Japhet, “Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles,” JBL 98 [1979]: 205–18; eadem, The Ideology of the Book of Chron- icles and Its Place in Biblical Thought [BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1989], 278–85; W. L. Osborne, “The Genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9” [Diss., Dropsie University, 1979], 3–95; J. Wein- berg, “Das Wesen und die funktionelle Bestimmung der Listen in I Chr 1-9,” ZAW 93 [1981]: 91– 114; Johnson, Biblical Genealogies, 44–55; Kartveit, Motive und Schichten, 166–67; Willi, Chronik, 7–9). Oeming goes so far as to say that the genealogies proleptically summarize the Chronicler’s thought (Wahre Israel, 206–18). 77 A clear exception is the lineage of the Davidides (1 Chr 3:1–24), which continues well into the Achaemenid era (MT) or perhaps later (LXX). Mention should also be made of the list of Jerusalem’s postexilic residents and their genealogical affiliations (1 Chr 9:2–34). 78 J. W. Rothstein and J. Hänel (Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik [KAT 18/2; Leipzig: Deichert, 1927]), followed by F. Michaeli (Les Livres des Chroniques, d’Esdras et de Néhémie [CAT 16; Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Nestlé, 1967], 57), would even add a name to the genealogy of priests (Jeshua) so that it extends to at least the beginning of the Persian period (cf. Ezra 3:2; Hag 1:1). 79 So the LXXB and Tg. (lectio brevior). The MT reads “from the descendants of the Qohathites.” Knoppers: Greek Historiography and the Chronicler 645

son of Jeroh\am, son of Eliel, son of Toah\,80 son of Zuph,81 son of Elqanah, son of Mah\ath, son of Amasai, son of Elqanah, son of Joel, son of Azariah, son of Zephaniah, son of Tah\ath, son of Assir, son of Abiasaph,82 son of Qorah\, son of Izhar, son of Qohath, son of Levi, son of Israel. (1 Chr 6:18–23; Eng. 6:33–38) The patronym of Heman represents one of three classes or guilds of musicians —the Qohathites, who along with the Gershonites and Merarites (cf. 2 Chr 5:12; 29:14; 35:15) receive new appointments during the time of David. Many contemporary scholars believe (rightly or wrongly) that the singers became esconced as a constituent feature of sanctuary worship only in Achaemenid times. But if the author was concerned to support the cause of the Levitical musicians, why stop with David? Why not continue the lineage to the singers living during the author’s own time? One might be tempted to give a pat answer, namely, that the author lacked adequate information for later periods of the monarchy. But the Chronicler’s account of the Judahite monarchy does mention the Levitical singers a number of times.83 Hence, the question may be sharpened: Why are none of these singers mentioned in the genealogies? Recourse to classical writings illumines this feature of the genealogies. The Catalogue of Women also lacks explicit references to contemporary circumstances and individual families. The poet limited himself to the mythical age and did not make explicit connections between the past and the present. Even in the work of the Greek genealogists, who do mention recent and contemporary figures, there is an emphasis on establishing links between the heroic age and the mythological age, as opposed to demonstrating a generation- by-generation sequence of unbroken lineages from the heroic age to the contemporary world.84 In either case, there was much in their reconstructions that was implicitly relevant to the present.85 As M. L. West observes with respect to

80 B AN Reading tôah\ with the MT. The LXX and c2 read Theie. The lemmata of the LXX Thoou(e) and the Vg. Thou may reflect toµh\û of MT 1 Sam 1:1. 81 So the Qere, many Hebrew MSS, and most of the versions; cf. the Ketib “Ziph.” 82 I read “Abiasaph” with LXXALN Abiasaph (cf. g Abeµasaph); cf. Exod 6:24 (MT

86 West, Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, 9–11. 87 Ibid., 10. Jacoby (“First Athenian Prose Writer,” 115–16) and Thomas (Oral Tradition and Written Record, 167–73) make similar comments about the function of the Philaid genealogy in Athens, arguing that this genealogy supported the civic cult, the acquisition of territory for Attica, and overseas colonization. 88 In speaking of the united monarchy functioning as a formative age, I mean that the author presents this period as the time in which many of Israel’s normative institutions such as the Leviti- cal singers, the Davidic monarchy, the Priestly courses, and the Jerusalem temple became established. There is in the Chronicler’s work an idealization of the united monarchy involving not only David and Solomon, but also Israel. I develop these themes further in my I Chronicles (forthcoming). 89 In this context, the genealogies establish parallels between those Levites serving as priests and those Levites serving as singers (G. N. Knoppers, “Hierodules, Priests, or Janitors? The Levites in Chronicles and the History of the Israelite Priesthood,” JBL 118 [1999]: 49–72; idem, “The Rela- tionship of the Priestly Genealogies to the History of the High Priesthood in Jerusalem,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period [ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003], 109–33). Knoppers: Greek Historiography and the Chronicler 647 of Heman, Gershon, and Merari, but also of “their sons” (1 Chr 6:18).90 In this manner, the author hints that the Levitical singers working in his own time, the late Achaemenid or early Hellenistic period, have an impeccable pedigree. Such is the nature of ancient genealogies that the value of a given lineage in contemporary circumstances is directly tied to its antiquity and setting. By their nature, genealogies are ostensibly all about the past, but they are also all about the present.91

Conclusions: The Genealogies in Historical Context

In looking for parallels to the Chronicler’s use of genealogies, a number of scholars have turned to king lists from the ancient Near East. While this research has borne fruit, it has also left many questions unanswered. In this paper, I have argued that the benefits of comparisons with ancient Greek writings are many. A variety of odd or otherwise inexplicable features of the Chron- icler’s lineages—their heavily segmented organization, their fixation upon certain earlier periods, the paucity of explicit references to the Chronicler’s own time, and their concentration on kinship relations within the larger nation —all can be illumined by reference to classical works. Moreover, the very existence of an elaborate system of generational relationships either as a literary work by itself or as a self-contained section within a larger work finds broad parallels in the historiographical traditions attested from ancient Greece. This essay began with a discussion of the common claim that Chronicles bears no signs of either Hellenic or Hellenistic influence. I have argued that the composition of the Chronicler’s work does manifest some signs of contacts (direct or indirect) with historiographic traditions attested in the ancient Aegean world, although I would acknowledge that most of the influences on the Chronicler’s work were derived from earlier biblical writings. Granted that the work exhibits some parallels with literary techniques found in Hellenic writings, how should one explain such parallels? To answer this question entails addressing one of the assumptions that scholars have made in assessing and dating the Chronicler’s work.

90 Hence, in Chronicles the Levites have a pedigree similar to that of the priests (1 Chr 5:27; 6:1). Both groups are ultimately descended from Levi (Knoppers, “Hierodules,” 49–72). 91 This consideration, as well as others, leads J. Vansina to comment that “genealogies are among the most complex sources in existence” (Oral Tradition as History [Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985], 182). R. Thomas goes further and speaks of genealogies as the least reliable of historical traditions (“Genealogy,” in Oxford Classical Dictionary [3rd ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1996], 629). 648 Journal of Biblical Literature

Archaeological studies of the Levant carried out during the last few decades have shed much new light on the history of this land during the Neo- Babylonian and Persian eras. Analysis of the material remains from ancient Palestine no longer supports the use of 332 B.C.E. as the threshold for Greek influence on Judah. Archaeological and written evidence for Greek contacts with the eastern Mediterranean predates the Macedonian conquest by centuries.92 The end of the Neo-Babylonian period and the advent of the Persian period witnessed a great expansion of international travel and commerce. Ini- tially, the contacts are most evident in the material culture of the Phoenician cities, the Galilee, and the coastal plain. E. Stern points out that material remains in the early Persian period from the Galilee region and the coastal plain are basically western, evincing eastern Greek, Cypriot, and Athenian influence.93 The Judean Hills, the Transjordan, and, to a lesser degree, Samaria are more eastern, evincing traditional culture as well as Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian influences. One could argue that Yehud was initially isolated from western influence, but it would seem hazardous to deny any contacts whatsoever, especially among the elite. In any case, as the centuries passed, imports from the east (and local imitations thereof) spread inland. The fifth and fourth centuries were a time of rapid Hellenization.94 In spite of international wars, international trade contin- ued, even grew. Western traditions were adapted in different ways according to local needs and circumstances. Whereas the first bearers of the new cultural products seem to have been mostly the Phoenicians, later bearers included the

92 D. Auscher, “Les relations entre la Grèce et la Palestine avant la conquète d’Alexandre,” VT 17 (1967): 8–30; A. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1975); E. Stern, “The Beginning of the Greek Settlement in Palestine in the Light of the Excavations at Tel Dor,” in Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology (ed. S. Gitin and W. G. Dever; AASOR 49; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 107–23; idem, Dor: Ruler of the Seas (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994); Larry Stager, Ashkelon Discovered—From Canaanites and Philistines to Romans and Moslems (Washington, DC: BAS, 1991); J. C. Waldbaum, “Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Levant, 1000–600 B.C.: The Eastern Perspective,” BASOR 293 (1994): 53–66; eadem, “Greeks in the East or Greeks and the East? Problems in the Definition and Recognition of Presence,” BASOR 305 (1997): 1–17; J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas (4th ed.; London: Thames & Hudson, 1999); idem, Persia and the West (London: Thames & Hudson, 2000); idem, “Aspects of ‘Colonization,’” BASOR 322 (2001): 33–42. 93 Stern, Material Culture, 283–86. 94 J. Elayi, Recherches sur les cités phéniciennes à l’époque perse (Supplemento 51 agli Annali 47/2; Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1987); eadem, Pénétration grecque en Phénicie sous l’empire perse (Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy, 1988); eadem, “Présence grecque sur la côte palestinienne,” in La Palestine à l’époque perse (ed. E-.M. Laperrousaz and A. Lemaire; Études annexes de la Bible de Jérusalem; Paris: Cerf, 1994), 245–60; E. Stern, The Assyrian, Baby- lonian, and Persian Periods 732–332 BCE, vol. 2 of Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 217–27, 518–34, 552–54, 558–59. Knoppers: Greek Historiography and the Chronicler 649

Greeks themselves (soldiers, settlers, and traders). That western influences are present in the material culture of Samaria and Yehud is evident by develop- ments in pottery, numismatics, weights, weaponry, fortifications, and glyptic art.95 There is also written evidence attesting to the development of numerous ties between east and west. Commercial and political contacts are presumed, ratified, and promoted, for example, in an Athenian decree, dating to approximately 367 B.C.E., that honors King Strato of Sidon.96 Found on a stele on the Acropolis near the Parthenon, the decree grants, among other things, various prerogatives to the king and to his descendants and offers the prospect that further privileges may be granted in the future.97 The edict authorizes the exchange of diplomatic envoys and a rider provides Sidonian merchants visiting Athens with exemptions from the property tax, from the metics’ tax, as well as from having to pay for part of the expense of supporting the public choruses (corhgovn).98 The inscription indicates that the shipment of goods did not flow in simply one direction. International trade was affecting many parts of the ancient Mediterranean world. The changes also affected southern Palestine. Evidence for a gradual transition in the southern Levant from older eastern traditions to newer western traditions is suggested by the Zenon papyri99 and to some extent by the Samaria papyri.100 In short, hundreds of years before the

95 E. Stern, “Between Persia and Greece: Trade, Administration, and Warfare in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods,” in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land (ed. T. E. Levy; London: Leicester University Press/New York: Facts on File, 1995), 432–45. 96 M. N. Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, II: From 403 to 323 B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1948), #139. 97 Ibid., lines 4–12. 98 Ibid., lines 29–36. One of the Phoencian inscriptions from Piraeus, the port of Athens (KAI 60), indicates that an association of Sidonians existed there already in the third century B.C.E. Four other Phoenician inscriptions are attested from Piraeus (KAI 56–59) and three from Athens itself (KAI 53–55). 99 A body of reports written in Greek beginning in 259 B.C.E. by Zenon, a steward of Apollo- nius, the financial officer of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. The reports focus on Zenon’s trips to and experiences in Palestine. See C. C. Edgar, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire: Zenon Papyri (5 vols.; Cairo: Institut français d’Archéologie orientale, 1925–40; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1971); W. L. Westermann, Zenon Papyri: Business Papers of the Third Century B.C. dealing with Palestine and Egypt (2 vols.; New York: Columbia University Press, 1934–40); C. Orrieux, Les papyrus de Zenon: L’horizon d’un grec en Egypte au IIIe siècle avant J.C. (Paris: Macula, 1983); X. Durand, Des Grecs en Palestine au IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ: Le dossier Syrien des Archives de Zénon de Caunos (261–252) (Paris: Gabalda, 1997). 100 A group of mostly legal documents dating approximately to 375 through 335 B.C.E. The texts were left in a cave in the Waµdî ed-Dâliyeh north of Jericho by Samarian refugees fleeing from the army of Alexander the Great in 331 B.C.E. See F. M. Cross, “Papyri of the Fourth Century B.C. from Dâliyeh: A Preliminary Report on Their Discovery and Significance,” in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (ed. D. N. Freedman and J. C. Greenfield; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 650 Journal of Biblical Literature armies of Alexander the Great conquered Palestine, the long process of Hell- enization had already begun. “By the third century BCE the entire country had become completely Hellenized.”101 A few decades ago, Michael Stone remarked that “the contrast between the age down to 400 B.C.E. and the pic- ture to be observed after 200 B.C.E. is stark, indeed starker than between Judaism before and after the Babylonian exile.”102 If so, Chronicles may be a bridge between these two eras.103 Within the Persian and Hellenistic periods, intellectual elites from a variety of societies found themselves confronted with empires aspiring to dominate the entire ancient Mediterranean world. These societies were both united and divided by trade, travel, taxation, and war. Given this fluctuating international setting, it may not be altogether surprising that one finds scribes indulging in genealogical speculations about the roots of their societies and their relations to other peoples. In this context, questions of self-identity, pedigree, shared kinship, and antipathy may have been prominent. Authors could affirm, react against, or be unconsciously influenced by this broader historical setting. To be sure, one would not want to reduce the Chronicler’s interest in genealogical relationships to only one particular impulse in the period in which he lived. He was, after all, not the first biblical writer to express an interest in pedigree. Nor would one want to advocate an end to cross-cultural studies of lineages in other ancient Near Eastern lands. There remains much to be learned from comparisons with the genealogical materials found within ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions, king lists, and priestly sources. But the point is a broader one. In the context of the late Persian period and the beginning of the Hellenistic period, the search for historical analogies to the literary conventions found in the Chronicler’s compositional technique need not end with ancient Mesopo- tamia and Egypt. Some of the best extrabiblical analogies to the Chronicler’s use of segmented genealogies are found not in the East and the South but in the West.104

1969), 41–62; idem, “The Papyri and Their Historical Implications,” in Discoveries in the WâdÈµ ed- Dâliyeh (ed. P. W. Lapp and N. L. Lapp; AASOR 41; Cambridge, MA: ASOR, 1974), 17–29; idem, “A Report on the Samaria Papyri,” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem, 1986 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 40; Leiden: Brill, 1988), 17–26; M. J. W. Leith, Wadi Daliyeh I: The Seal Impressions (DJD 24; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). The papyri themselves have been recently published by D. M. Gropp, Wadi Daliyeh II: The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh (DJD 28; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). 101 Stern, “Between Persia and Greece,” 444. 102 M. E. Stone, Scriptures, Sects, and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 25. 103 Along with many other commentators, I believe that Chronicles was written near the end of the Persian period or the beginning of the Hellenistic period (I Chronicles, forthcoming). 104 I wish to thank my colleague Paul B. Harvey, Jr., for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.