Compare the reign of Manasseh in 2Kings 21:1-18 to the account in 2Chr. 33:1-20. The disparity between the two accounts has led some critical scholars to conclude that there was deliberate theological reshaping or embellishment of Israel's earlier history by late postexilic theologians. This pattern of theological reshaping/embellishment is seen in the NT with GJohn in relation to the synoptics, for example.
Couldn't we however view both accounts of Manasseh as one and the same? 2Kings 21:17 and 2Chr. 33:18-19 states: "The rest of the acts of Manasseh..are in the Annals of the Kings of Israel..". Why is it therefore inconceivable that there is no theological embellishment in the 2Chr. account per se, but rather historical elaboration of the life of Manasseh? Couldn't we likewise view John and the synoptics in similar light? John 21:25 states: "There are also many other things that Jesus did..the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Why is it therefore inconceivable that there is no theological embellishment in GJohn per se, but rather historical elaboration of the life of Jesus?
Couldn't we however view both accounts of Manasseh as one and the same? 2Kings 21:17 and 2Chr. 33:18-19 states: "The rest of the acts of Manasseh..are in the Annals of the Kings of Israel..". Why is it therefore inconceivable that there is no theological embellishment in the 2Chr. account per se, but rather historical elaboration of the life of Manasseh? Couldn't we likewise view John and the synoptics in similar light? John 21:25 states: "There are also many other things that Jesus did..the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." Why is it therefore inconceivable that there is no theological embellishment in GJohn per se, but rather historical elaboration of the life of Jesus?
Comment