.
. . interestingly, three prophets—Samuel, Nathan, and Gad—are named in relation
to acts of writing. Moreover, three different terms are employed that designate
them as prophets: Samuel is a “seer” (ראה;
cf. 1 Chr 9:22; 26:28; but see 2 Chr 35:18: נביא); Nathan is a “prophet” (נביא;
cf. 1 Chr 17:1; 2 Chr 29:25; but also see 1 Chr 17:15, speaking of החזון); and
Gad is a “visionary” (חזה; . . . cf. 1 Chr 21:9; 2 Chr 29:25; see also 2 Sam
24:11: נביא + חזה). All of these prophets also feature in the preceding narrative,
although playing minor roles. Samuel is mentioned only in passing a couple of
times (1 Chr 6:13; 9:22; 11:3; 26:28; 29:29; 2 Chr 35:18), Nathan appears only
in relation to the dynastic promise in 1 Chr 17, and Gad plays a role only in
relation to the census in 1 Chri 21. Why, then were they included?
The most likely answer to that question is that their
inclusion reflects a specific understanding of how the transmission of
traditions inherited from the Deuteronomistic history was carried out. More
specifically, 1-2 Chr seems to presume that prophets are responsible for
historiography, and in light of the function of prophecy elsewhere in the
Hebrew Bible, this responsibility is often described as quite surprising, since
it is assumed that prophecy and history are essentially different things.
Consequently, it is argued as ultimately pointing to a shift in prophetic
activity—“the prophets have become historians.” (Quote from Schweitzer 2011,
40) But how is the relation between prophecy and “history” understood in the
texts themselves? And what is implied in the notion of writing?
Looking at the first prophet that 1 Chr 29:29 relates
to written records of the acts of the king (המלך) David, a crucial
observation can be made. The individual in question, Samuel, died before David
became king (1 Sam 25:1, while David was still on the run from Saul). Taken
together with the fact that 1-2 Chr does not include any narratives set to a
time prior to Samuel’s death, the reference emanates as quite peculiar. Why
would an individual be named as a “source” of a document recounting events in a
time after his own death, as the common interpretation of these references
would imply?
A solution may be found if the reference is understood
not as a footnote, but as a narrative of transmission of literary works. More
specifically, if understood in line with a Mesopotamian author concept, where
divine-human exchange and the importance of subsequent ones in the transmission
are emphasized, and if related to the discussion of the relation between
written prophecy and the prophet Isaiah in the ‘book’ called Isaiah, it
could be suggested that what is claimed in 1 Chr 29:29 is not that Samuel wrote
a document about King David but that he performs the function of a “first
one” through which events relating to David were channelled into writing.
Further support for this suggestion can be found in
the fact that the passage says that acts are written (ql passive
participle) in (על) the words of Samuel—that is, in a piece of
literature related to Samuel--similar to the way the ‘book’ called Isaiah was
related to the prophet Isaiah (cf. esp. Isa 2:1). This observation would also
indicate that the narratives in 1-2 Chr are constructed as in continuation with
this Samuelic tradition. Rather than being seen as a replacement, they
are framed as a faithful reimagination of the past in light of the needs
of the present.
Ultimately, this underscores that the reference is not
a showcasing of courses used in the composition of 1-2 Chr, nor does it suggest
further reading. Instead, it constitutes an appeal to the authority of a
tradition by explicitly aligning itself with it. What is new in 1-2 Chr is,
then, that the tradition has been pretextually framed in relation to a named
“first one,” but the fact that 1-2 Chr is itself anonymous indicates that a
Mesopotamian author concept is still in play. (David
Davage, How Isaiah Became an Author: Prophecy, Authority, and Attribution [Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2022], 161-63)
Similarly,
it is prophets active under the reign of Solomon that are mentioned as
transmitting his acts in writing in 2 Chr 9:29: Nathan (נביא; see 1 Kgs
1:1-53); Ahijah (see 1 Kgs 11:29-39; cf. 2 Chr 19:15), and perhaps also Iddo (חזה;
see also 21 Chr 12:15; 13:22: נביא), if identified with the unnamed prophet in
1 Kgs 13:1-10. The other prophets mentioned in the references (apart from
Isaiah) are Shemaiah (the acts of Rehoboam, 2 Chr 12:15; mentioned also in 2
Chr 11:2; 12:5, 7); Jehu, who is not explicitly referred to as a prophet in 2
Chr 20:35 but can be understood as such in light of 2 Chr 16:7, where his
father, Hanani, is described as a ראה, and 19:2, where either Hanani or Jehu is
described as a חזה (cf. Schniedewind 1995 213, 213n16); and Hozai . . . This
use of prophets in 1-2 Chr makes observations such as that the prophet Isaiah
is the “only classical prophet” (so Japhet 1993, 887, 997) to whom such a role
is ascribed less puzzling, since no other “classical” prophet features in the
narratives in the Deuteronomistic history and, more importantly, since the
distinction itself is hardly evident in the material. To be noted is that
writing is also mentioned in relation to additional individuals, most
significantly Moses, David, Solomon, and Jeremiah. Interestingly, the texts
supposedly composed by David, Solomon, and Jeremiah are known only by their
name. (Ibid., 161 n. 20)
