1

II Kings 14:28 KJV — Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of chronicles of the kings of Israel?

I searched for Jeroboam son of Joash in the books of Chronicles without success. If the bold letters are true, a detailed account of the recovery of Damascus and Hamath should be in either I Chronicles or II Chronicles.

Was some part of I & II Chronicles lost? Or are they originally a part of a larger, more comprehensive document called the "book of chronicles of the kings of Israel"?

If the "book of chronicles" in II Kings 14:28 refers to II Chronicles, the original scribes seemed to have made a mistake because Jeroboam son of Joash does not appear in II Chronicles. Chronologically, he should be mentioned somewhere around II Chronicles 25 & 26. However, it may be that I have failed to read a passage of the books of Chronicles which actually explains II Kings 14:28. But even the commentaries and cross references seem to evade this question. How come?

  • 1
    Simple: the books of 1 & 2 Chronicles are the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, not Israel. – curiousdannii Feb 4 '16 at 7:42
  • @Brian Weigand I am referring to the lesser known Jeroboam. II Kings 14:23 — "In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and reigned forty and one years." He was also the king during the time of prophet Hosea: Hosea 1:1 — "The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel." – PseudoJD Feb 4 '16 at 21:42
  • @curiousdannii Would I be able to find that somewhere? Or is the chronicles of the kings of Israel not known to us? – PseudoJD Feb 4 '16 at 21:46
  • @JohnDoeThePseudoguy - sorry, I can't read. – Bʀɪᴀɴ Feb 4 '16 at 22:07
  • @JohnDoeThePseudoguy They haven't survived until now unfortunately. – curiousdannii Feb 5 '16 at 1:16
2

When the Book of Kings (1 Kings and 2 Kings were originally a single book that was eventually split because of its length) talks of the book of chronicles of the kings of Israel, it could not be referring the the Book we know as Chronicles (1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles) because Chronicles was written centuries later.

Most critical scholars attribute the Book of Kings to an anonymous author now known as the Deuteronomist, who wrote during the seventh-century-BCE reign of King Josiah of Judah. The Book of Chronicles, along with the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah form an integrated block of text with a unity of style and content, allowing us to date Chronicles to the period following the Babylonian Exile - centuries after the Deuteronomic History was written.

The Books we know as 1 and 2 Chronicles are not the now-lost books of chronicles of the kings of Israel and Judah, to which The Book of Kings refers. Chronicles appears to make use of the earlier Books of Kings, as well as other sources, occasionally altering or omitting some material from 1 and 2 Kings. John Romer says, in Testament: the Bible and History, the difference in attitude between the Deuteronomist and the Chronicler is often seen as representing two different factions among the returning Jews.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.