002_cudworth_co_498_523 13/02/15 11:26 Pagina 501 THE DIVISION OF ISRAEL’S KINGDOM IN CHRONICLES 501 argue below that the Chronicler has made sufficient changes for a coherent story, one that maintains and even intensifies the blame put on Rehoboam in 1 Kings for his actions. With this central text understood, an analysis of other pertinent texts will further illumi- nate the Chronicler’s view on the matter, texts such as Solomon’s reign (2 Chronicles 1–9) and Abijah’s speech (13,4-12). We may now re-examine the usual suspects. II. Rehoboam at the Shechem Council Since the Chronicler first broaches the topic of Israel’s split into two separate kingdoms at the beginning of Rehoboam’s reign in 2 Chr 10,1-11,4, a passage the Chronicler borrows with very few changes from his Vorlage in 1 Kgs 12,1-24, we may look at him as our first suspect. In both texts, a group of Israelites confronts the new king Rehoboam about the “heavy yoke” levied upon them by his father Solomon (v. 4). As the story goes, Rehoboam forgoes the wise counsel of the elders and shuns the people, a move which leads to the secession of the northern tribes. 1. The Chronicler’s creative use of “all Israel” By far the most important of the Chronicler’s changes concerns his use of the phrase “all Israel” (larXy-lk) at several points (2 Chr 10,1.3.16 [2x]; 11,3). Of these five occurrences, the Chronicler has borrowed the phrase from 1 Kings 12 in two instances (10,1.16) and modified the text in the other three (10,3.16; 11,3). His removal of the term in another verse (1 Kgs 12,18 // 2 Chr 10,18) 14, com- bined with the retention of a different phrase for the people (e.g. “the people of Israel” in 10,17.18) and the specification of all Israel in another place (cf. 11,3, “all Israel in Judah and Benjamin”), re- veal that he does not use this term haphazardly 15. Rather, the Chronicler integrates it into the narrative here as the continuation 14 He also removes two occurrences in 12,20, but seemingly for other rea- sons that do not concern the term itself. 15 That is to say, he does not use the phrase everywhere, and so it likely has a different connotation than “the people of Israel”.