역대기 저자의 기울어진 ‘온 이스라엘’ 사상

Abstract

This thesis posits that the Chronicler’s portrayal of Northern Israel embodies a dual approach of inclusivity and exclusivity. Through revisions, additions, deletions, and reinterpretations of the ‘original text,’ the author of Chronicles articulates a nuanced perspective on Northern Israel, employing his own narrative strategies to elucidate his viewpoints. The evidence supporting this assertion is multifaceted. Firstly, the genealogical listings of the 12 tribes in 1 Chronicles 1-9, acknowledgment of Joseph’s primogeniture, and references to Ephraim and Manasseh inhabitants in Jerusalem illustrate the Chronicler’s inclusive stance towards Northern Israel. Secondly, the emphasis on the tribes of Judah and Levi in these genealogies, in terms of their numerical predominance and pivotal role, respectively, indicates a vision of a unified Israel pivoting around Southern Judah. Thirdly, mentions of the Northern Tribe’s lands within these genealogies are interpreted as an attempt to encompass Northern Israel while asserting a claim over its historical territories. Fourthly, the omission of Northern Israel’s monarchy and the Elijah-Elisha stories, due to their discordance with the Chronicler’s theological framework centered on the Davidic covenant and the primacy of the Jerusalem sanctuary, underscores an exclusionary dimension. Contrary to the outright opposition seen in the Ezra-Nehemiah period, the Chronicler adopts a stance of conditional inclusion towards the Northern tribes, predicated on their acceptance of the Jerusalem Temple’s centrality. Thus, the narrative emphasizes a theological vision where the Davidic dynasty and the Jerusalem Temple are foundational, suggesting an ordered hierarchy of religious significance. In this schema, the sanctity of the Temple and the legitimacy of the Davidic lineage precede all other considerations, with David being the sole monarch of all Israel and the Jerusalem Temple serving as the universal sanctuary. This theological perspective can be succinctly encapsulated by the statement that “Jerusalem and David define Israel,” signifying the Chronicler’s interpretative framework that prioritizes the unification of Israel under these central institutions.