Introduction To The Historical Books

The Mesha Stele (Moabite Stone) recounts Moab’s King Mesha’s successful overthrow of Israelite oppression under Omri and his son, Ahab (2Kg 3:6-27). It is the longest Iron Age inscription found in Palestine.]

A competing opinion among scholars treat Deuteronomy through 2 Kings as the work of an unnamed editor deeply influenced by the themes of Deuteronomy. According to this view, the editor wove sources together during the exile (about 550 BC). Deuteronomy to 2 Kings was initially unrelated to and independent of the Tetrateuch (Genesis through Numbers). This history is the result of sewing together written sources, authoring new material, and integrating the whole into one narrative. Scholars debate the details of date and authorship, some suggesting one author and others proposing several with two or three editions of the work. Its proponents, however, generally accept that the core of Deuteronomy was written in the mid-seventh century by an author drawing on ancient traditions from the time of Moses. Later an individual or group supporting Josiah’s reforms expanded and reworked this core into the lion’s share of Deuteronomy through 2 Kings. This expanded history was later augmented in about 550 BC to reflect the fall of Jerusalem.

In contrast to the traditional rabbinic opinion, these two critical theories emphasize the continuity of the Former Prophets. But in doing so, they create a number of problems of their own. Scholars, for example, are not agreed on the process of compilation or on who the nameless editors were (priests, prophets, or sages?). The criteria used by source critics for discovering the underlying literary strands in the Former Prophets are as suspect as those employed for the Pentateuch. Most troubling for these composition theories is their assumption of a seventh-century date for Deuteronomy. Its literary form has, however, been shown to be much older than proposed. In fact, it corresponds in general to the political treaties among the Hittites (about 1400-1200 BC).

The challenge is to give due consideration both to the continuity and marked differences evidenced in the Former Prophets. The four books were likely once independent works, largely in their present form. These underwent a brief period of editorial integration after the destruction of Jerusalem. What they share with Deuteronomy is best attributed to the imposing figure of the prophet Moses. His theology of history, reflected in Deuteronomy, became the touchstone by which Israel interpreted its history. The Former Prophets view Israel as playing out what Moses had forewarned concerning God’s blessing and cursing (Dt 28).

First and Second Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah give a different but complementary perspective than Joshua through 2 Kings does on Israel’s history. First and Second Chronicles parallel this first history from creation to the destruction of Jerusalem. Ezra-Nehemiah continues the account with the return of the exiles from Babylon and the restoration of the religious life of Judah (about 400 BC). Since these books were written during and after the exile when there was no monarchy, they focus on the religious life of restored Israel. Temple worship and observance of the law of Moses are particularly emphasized.

Like the Former Prophets, the Books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah have been ascribed to a single author or compiler. The rabbinic tradition attributed these four books to Ezra the scribe. Some modern scholars who have emphasized the unity of the books in language, content, and perspective follow this position.

Others, agreeing in principle with the idea of a single author or compiler, have proposed an unnamed author (the “Chronicler”). The Chronicler drew on sources, including the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah and the Books of Samuel and Kings. He completed his “Chronicler’s History” no earlier than 400 BC. A variation on this view suggests this history was written in two steps. First and Second Chronicles plus Ezra 1-6 is seen as an early edition by the Chronicler (about 515 BC). At this time, coinciding with the prophetic ministries of Haggai and Zechariah, Israel’s hope was for a restored Davidic monarchy (1Ch 3:17-19; see Ezr 1:8; 3:8; 5:1-2; 6:14; Hg 2:6-9; 2:23; Zch 3:1-4:14; 6:9-15). The inclusion of Ezra 7-10 (Ezra’s reforms) and Nehemiah’s material came later (about 400 BC). At this later time the community shifted its emphasis from the monarchy and the religious role of David to the law of Moses. Some prefer, therefore, to speak of a “Chronistic school” rather than a single author.

The similar language and content of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah points to a single work. Both works stress, for instance, the role of the temple and worship customs. Further evidence of linkage is 2 Chronicles 36:1-21, which recounts the pilfering of temple articles, and Ezra 1:7-11, which inventories the restored temple treasuries. Most significant is the verbatim agreement of 2 Chronicles’ final verses (36:22-23) with the opening paragraph of Ezra (1:1-3a). These verses contain the decree of Cyrus announcing the release of the Jews from captivity. In fact, the last verse of 2 Chronicles ends in the middle of a thought that is completed in the Ezra version (1:3b). This duplication of verses, it is argued, indicates that the books were once bound as a consecutive whole. Evangelical as well as critical scholars hold this view of a single work. Conservative scholarship uniformly holds that the Chronicler used reliable sources and did not materially distort them.

Other scholars, both evangelical and critical, argue that Ezra and Nehemiah were the authors of their own works. Proponents of this position point to significant differences in both language and content between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. (For instance, Chronicles does not address the subject of mixed marriages.) Finally, the Hebrew arrangement of Ezra-Nehemiah followed by 1 and 2 Chronicles is said to evidence that the two were not authored as one piece. The common paragraph shared by Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles can best be explained as a much later attempt to bind together what were once separate books.

The arrangement of the Hebrew canon, however, is not a decisive witness for either position. Assuming the books are arranged Ezra, Nehemiah, 1,2 Chronicles, the decree of Cyrus could form bookends, appearing at the beginning of Ezra and at the end of 2 Chronicles. This proclamation of freedom, repeated twice, conveyed the abiding hope that God would yet again gather the Jews dispersed among the nations.

In conclusion, the differences between the books cautions against concluding—without more evidence—that the works of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah were originally a single document: the Chronicler’s history.

Ruth and Esther, classified as historical books in English Bibles, are included among the five Megilloth. These books—Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther—are related to the five festivals (and fasts) of the Jewish calendar. Ruth, set at the harvest, is read at the Festival of Weeks (Pentecost), which celebrates the spring ingathering (May-June). Esther’s story gives the origins of the Festival of Purim and is read on that occasion (14th and 15th of Adar [Feb.-Mar.]). Purim is the only Old Testament festival not legislated by the Mosaic law.