1. Introduction

Much has been written about the ability of historians to shape constructions of the past according to their own worldviews, theologies or ideologies, and on the influence of social location on historiography. In fact, there is abundant proof that the ancient historians responsible for such books as Kings and Chronicles could mould their accounts to serve particular theological, ideological, literary and rhetorical purposes. To be sure, the same holds true for most histories. Such a situation is to be expected, since theological/ideological (hereafter, theological) frames and considerations influence the significance ascribed to events in the past. Moreover, the articulation of the significance of an historical event requires that the event be set within a comprehensive historical narrative that most often includes the historical causes and effects of the event, and at times, even alternative paths that were open to the historical agents but not chosen by the historical agents. In other words, events as understood and construed within a larger narrative (or meta-narrative), rather than ‘the events per se’, are the bearers of social and theological significance in accounts of the past. Significantly, the (implied) author of Chronicles (hereafter, ‘the Chronicler’) was mainly interested in constructing and communicating the social and theological significance of the Israel's history (or the portion of it covered in Chronicles; on this matter, see below).

The Chronicler constructed and communicated meaning through the creation of a historical narrative that included numerous accounts of past events, shaped so as to convey a particular significance.