002_cudworth_co_498_523 13/02/15 11:26 Pagina 499 THE DIVISION OF ISRAEL’S KINGDOM IN CHRONICLES 499 the dynastic oracle 6. According to Knoppers, the account of David’s reign in 2 Samuel would have left many hermeneutical, historical, and social issues for the Chronicler to resolve for the post-exilic community of Yehud 7. Thus, using the dynastic oracle as his starting point, Knoppers argues that the Chronicler “changes history” to address these inconsistencies. In other words, even though the Chronicler works with well-established landmarks of Israel’s storied past, he clearly does not have any problem with modifying them to a great extent to suit his own purposes. Beyond this, exegetes have eagerly sought out other critical places where the Chronicler has made the most shocking changes in history. However, the record of Israel’s split into two different kingdoms (and the assignment of blame) represents an area that requires more caution. At one time, von Rad represented the view of many that immediately after the northern secession the true Israel resided in Judah and Benjamin (2 Chr 11,3) 8. Against this view, Williamson made several arguments that the Chronicler did not criticize the northern tribes in their departure, but that they had left for good reasons, much like the account in 1 Kings 9. As support, he pointed out how the Chronicler retained two statements that asserted God’s execution of the division (2 Chr 10,15; 11,4 // 1 Kgs 12,15.24), which he avers could not be accidental due to the Chronicler’s stress up to this point on the unity of Israel 10. He adds that the Chronicler considered the northerners rebellious only after they in- 6 G.N. KNOPPERS, “Changing History: Nathan’s Oracle and the Structure of the Davidic Monarchy in Chronicles”, Shai le-Sara Japhet. Studies in the Bible, Its Exegesis, and Its Language (eds. M. BAR-ASHER – D. ROM-SHILONI – E. TOV – N. WAZANA) (Jerusalem 2007) 99-123. 7 Most scholars agree that the Chronicler used some form of Samuel- Kings as his main source; cf. R.K. DUKE, “Recent Research in Chronicles”, CBR 8 (2009) 10-50, here 23-25. A.G. AULD, Kings Without Privilege. David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings (Edinburgh 1994), has disagreed with this near consensus and argued at length that the authors of Samuel- Kings and Chronicles shared a common source that is now lost. 8 Cf. G. VON RAD, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (Stutt- gart 1930) 30-31. See also W. RUDOLPH, Chronikbücher (HAT 21; Tübingen 1955) 227. 9 WILLIAMSON, Israel in Chronicles, 110-14, following A.C. WELCH, Post- exilic Judaism (Edinburgh 1935) 189-191. 10 Cf. 1 Chr 29,20-26 (4x); 2 Chr 1,2 (2x); 7,6.8; 9,30.