Chronicles and The Chronicler: A Response to I. Kalimi, An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place, and Writing

Abstract

could only deliver in a partial or summary form within the very limited temporal confines of an academic meeting. In the case of Professor Kalimi, he has been able to convey in much greater detail in the present context of publication in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures his reactions to the individual papers than he was able to at the meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in November 2005. In this respect, his extensive response to the respondents is, to no small extent, an essay created for publication in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures. His work includes a series of footnotes, helpfully referring readers to the relevant sections of his new book, as well as to his other publications. I wish to thank the editor of the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Professor Ehud Ben Zvi for his generosity in publishing this collection of reviews and the response to those reviews by Professor Kalimi. Ehud's tireless efforts to promote a productive scholarly dialogue within the guild are to be applauded and commended. In concluding, I think that I can speak for all of the respondents and for the author as well in saying that we hope that the following discussion will be conducive to further study of the book of Chronicles and its important place within biblical thought. COMMENTS EHUD BEN ZVI UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES, 6 (2006) 2.1 BETWEEN ACTUAL AND IMPLIED AUTHORS Kalimi certainly refers to the actual, historical, flesh and blood author of Chronicles. This is his Chronicler. He is certainly not alone in this regard, but he characterizes this author on the basis of the text. For instance, he writes: ... the main literary nature of Chronicles is neither midrashic, nor exegetic, nor theologic. Therefore, to label the Chronicler as "Midrashist," "exegete," or "theologian," as some scholars have, is inaccurate (p. 10). Indeed, a careful study of [the book of] Chronicles reveals that we are dealing with historiography, and so its composer-the Chroniclershould be considered first and foremost as a historian (p. 30). Kalimi is talking about the flesh and blood, actual author of Chronicles, but is he not referring here to the implied author instead? Does Kalimi assume that whatever one can learn about the implied author directly applies to the actual author? If so, some explanation is warranted. And in any case, why the emphasis on the actual author if most of which one can learn about him actually refers to the implied author? What is at stake? 2.2 ON HISTORIOGRAPHY, ANCIENT HISTORIANS, AND RELIABILITY OF TEXTS AND HISTORICAL SOURCES Kalimi places much emphasis on the characterization of Chronicles as a historiographical work and on the Chronicler as a historian. Not many scholars today would disagree with him on this regard whether they refer to the actual or implied author of the book by the term the Chronicler. A far more contentious issue, however, is that despite numerous caveats, Kalimi seems to claim that a historian cannot be accurately described as a midrashist or a theologian, in addition to bei...