01_Biblica_1_E_Kalimi_Layout 1 30/01/13 13:15 Pagina 487 01_B 487 KING SOLOMON sources he was clearly her first, is indeed difficult” 17, but she fails to suggest any answer to this or the other problem (namely, that Bathsheba had only one and not four sons). There are, however, some scholars that attempt to suggest solutions to these issues. For example, Rudolf Kittel simply asserted: “The expansion of the list with 2 [sic!] more names was caused by text corruption” 18. Wilhelm Rudolph con- siders the entire list of David’s descendants in 1 Chronicles 3 as a late post-Chronistic addition, which is based (in his opinion) on extra-bib- lical sources 19. Similarly, Rudolf Mosis considers the words “four by Bathshua daughter of Ammiel” (together with entire 3,5-9) as a sec- ondary, late interpolation made by a late redactor of Chronicles ac- cording to what he found in 1 Chr 14,4-7 20. This approach seems to be an easy answer that creates a series of new problems. Why should the post-Chronistic writer interpolate these words (or chapter) into the text and create the contradictions between Chronicles and Samuel? The Chronicler repeated the list in two places (1 Chr 3,5-9 and 14,4- 7) in order to stress the birth place of Solomon (see above). What was the purpose of the late interpolator repeating the list in 1 Chr 3,5-9? Moreover, there is no textual or philological basis to consider verse 5c as a late addition. Although the Chronicler does not include numbers in 1 Chr 14,4- 7, he adds the numbers “four” in 1 Chr 3,5c and “nine” in verse 8 of the same chapter. It is reasonable to consider these numbers as com- ing from the hand of the Chronicler rather than as “a later gloss made by someone who added the total number of children here and at the end of the verse (‘nine’)”, as Ralph W. Klein claims21. It is sufficient See S. JAPHET, I & II Chronicles. A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, KY 17 1993) 96. “Besonders sind über die Vorlage hinaus die 4 ersten als Söhne der 18 Bathseba bezeichnet. Die Erweiterung der Liste um 2 Namen wird auf Text- fehlern ruhen”. See R. KITTEL, Die Bücher der Chronik übersetzt und erklärt (HAT 6,1; Göttingen 1902) 22. In his comment on verse 8, Kittel attempts to explain (in my opinion unsuccessfully) how that textual corruption happened. See RUDOLPH, Chronikbücher, 26. Notice, Rudolph does not include 1 19 Chronicles 3 within his “Gliederung der Chronikbücher”; see pp. 1-5 esp. 1. On the possibility that the Chronicler had an extra-biblical source, see below in this study. See R. MOSIS, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Ge- 20 schichtswerkes (Freiburger theologische Studien 92; Freiburg im Breisgau – Basel – Wien 1973) 77-78, note 86. See R.W. KLEIN, 1 Chronicles. A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minnea- 21 polis, MN 2006) 115. © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati