The Chronicler’s Portrayal of Solomon as the King of Peace within the Context of the International Peace Discourses of the Persian Era

---

Jonker: The Chronicler’s portrayal of Solomon OTE 21/3 (2008), 653-669      653 

 

The Chronicler’s Portrayal of Solomon as the King of 

Peace within the Context of the International Peace 

Discourses of the Persian Era 

 

L

OUIS 

J

ONKER

 

U

NIVERSITY OF 

S

TELLENBOSCH

 

 

ABSTRACT 

It has become customary to emphasise the influence of Greek historiogra-

phy on the Books of Chronicles. Knoppers (2003a), for example, has ar-

gued that one should not underestimate the influence of classical Greek 

writers on the Chronicler. Although he argues his point from the genealogi-

cal analogies between the first part of Chronicles and classical writers, he 

convincingly shows that one could imagine Greek influence in biblical 

writings far earlier than the enigmatic date of 332 B.C.E., which is nor-

mally seen as a threshold for Greek influence on Judah. Traditional scho-

larship tended to interpret Chronicles exclusively within the cultic-religious 

conditions of the late-Persian/early Hellenistic province of Yehud – the Je-

rusalem community, in particular. With the acknowledgement of a wider 

sphere of influence during this time, it would make sense, however, to in-

terpret the Books of Chronicles against the background of the international 

arena of the time. This article will therefore attempt to show that our under-

standing of King Solomon, the King of Peace, can be enriched when we 

view his portrayal in Chronicles within the international arena of the late 

post-exilic era. The theme of peace, so closely related to Solomon, will be 

examined against the background of the relationship between Greece and 

Persia, and the conditions within the Persian Empire.

1

 

 

A INTRODUCTION 

Although none of the recent critical commentaries on Chronicles includes an explicit 

discussion of the intended audience in its introduction to the book,

2

 there is consensus 

among these scholars (becoming clear from their discussions on the ideology of 

Chronicles) that the book most probably had its origin among the literati in Jerusalem, 

and was most probably addressed to the cultic community (the cultic elites in particu-

                                                 

 

1

  Paper delivered at the OTSSA Meeting, Windhoek, Namibia in September 2008. 

2

  See, e g, the introductions in Japhet (1993), Tuell (2001), Knoppers (2003b), McKenzie 

(2004), Dirksen (2005) and Klein (2006). 

---

654     Jonker: The Chronicler’s portrayal of Solomon OTE 21/3 (2008), 653-669       

 

lar) in Yehud during the late Persian or early Hellenistic period (i. e. sometime in the 

fourth century B.C.E. or later). There are good arguments in support of this view, 

since the issues addressed by the Chronicler

3

 show clearly his interest in the processes 

of identity negotiation

4

 typical of the restoration in the post-exilic era. 

 

This consensus has influenced Chronicles scholarship so strongly that the 

possible influence of the surrounding cultures has been largely neglected. Although a 

prominent scholar such as Sarah Japhet still argued in 1993 (in her discussion of the 

date of Chronicles) that almost no Greek or Persian influence can be detected in the 

book,

5

 a few scholarly voices have lately started to emphasise the possible influence 

of Greek historiography.

6

 Knoppers (2003a:628), the most recent and most sophisti-

cated voice in this regard, argues: 

The failure to explore comparisons with the conventions of classical histo-

riography is unfortunate. Cross-cultural studies offer the benefits of com-

paring 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 fea-

tures of a particular era or writing. Moreover, ancient Greece does offer na-

tional histories that may be compared with the Deuteronomistic History and 

Chronicler's History.

 

 Knoppers 

(2003a:628-629) 

subsequently expresses his astonishment that, 

‘(g)iven such precedents, it is surely ironic that the chronological 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.’ He then conti-

nues to show how Greek historiographies can shed some light on the use of genealogi-

cal material in Chronicles. 

 

In my opinion, this very obvious point made by Knoppers has not been ex-

plored enough in Chronicles scholarship.

7

 The Books of Chronicles are mostly treated 

in isolation, as if the international environment of their time of origin had no influence 

                                                 

 

3

  Commentators show how the Chronicler's interest in the Davidic kingship, temple buil-

ding, the Levites, written Torah (to mention but a few theological issues) reflect the religio-

cultic conditions of second-temple Yehud. See the introductions to the commentaries men-

tioned in the previous footnote. 

4

  See my contributions in this regard where I have argued that Chronicles could be seen as 

‘reforming history’, contributing to the processes of identity negotiation of the time. See 

Jonker (2003a, 2003b, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2008 forthcoming, 2009 forthcoming). 

5

  See Japhet's discussion in her commentary (1993: 23-28). 

6

  See discussions in Hoglund (1997), Kalimi (1997) and most recently Knoppers (2003a). 

7

  In another contribution (Jonker 2006) I experimented with this view by reading the narra-

tive of Asa in 2 Chronicles 14-16 against the background of the reputation of the Cushites in 

Greek historiography. 

---