Piet B. Dirksen, «Chronistic Tendency in 1 Chr 18,10-11», Vol. 80 (1999) 269-271

The omission of wyh wdybw and the addition of lkw in 1 Chr 18,10 are deliberate. The last part of v. 10 now connects with v. 11 and refers to the spoil of Hadadezer instead of to the gift of King Toi. This interpretation is confirmed by three other Chronistic changes in v. 11.

1 Chr 18 runs parallel to 2 Sam 8. Between the two chapters there are a few differences which are stylistic in nature or are related to the transmission of the text. In only a few cases is it a disputed question whether or not the difference betrays a Chronistic point of view. These include the omission in v. 2 of David’s harsh treatment of the Moabites, the addition in v. 8b of the remark that the bronze which David took from the Aramean cities was used by Solomon for the temple, and the change with respect to the position of David’s sons in v. 17.

        It is the contention of this article that a case of Chronistic tendency occurs in vv. 10-11. According to 2 Sam 8,10 King Toi of Hamath sent his son to David on a diplomatic mission with "(wyh wdybw) articles of silver, gold and bronze". The words wyh wdybw are omitted in Chronicles, which, moreover has ylk lkw instead of the first ylk in the Samuel text. The result is that Chronicles now has "and all the articles of gold, silver and bronze", which is only very loosely connected with what precedes, if connected at all. Rudolph¹ tries to solve this difficulty by considering the waw in lkw a waw concomitantiae, or, alternatively, by reading bekol (cp. BHS). In the latter suggestion he is followed by Japhet. Apart from the fact that there is no text-critical justification for the emendation, neither proposal really softens the syntactical problem. In general, exegetes and translators deal with this omission as accidental and translate the verse as if the omitted words have to be understood anyway.

        Some examples are the following:

Myers: "[He also sent] all sorts of...objects";
Galling: "und in seiner Hand waren goldene...Geräte";
NRSV: "He sent all sorts of articles of gold...";
TOB: "[pour le féliciter] et pour lui apporter toutes sortes d’objets d’or...";
Tanakh; NJPST: "[he brought with him] all manner of gold... objects".

        This type of translation is basically based on the text of Samuel. This translation would be justified if there were any reason to consider the omission as accidental but no such reason has been adduced. Instead, there are strong reasons to assume the change to be deliberate.

        If we leave the Samuel text aside for a while, then the obvious transla-tion is that in which "all the articles of gold, silver, and bronze" is no