The radically different perspective of Solomon’s coronation scene as recorded by the Chronicler in 1 Chr 28–29 vis-à-vis the Deuteronomist’s rendering in 1 Kgs 1–2 has often been passed off as merely rhetorical flare or polemic lacking any degree of historical veracity. Yet the question still lingers: did the Chronicler make up Solomon’s coronation scene out of whole cloth or is there some other reason for the variation? This article argues that the Chronicler did not of necessity fabricate a new coronation scene diametrically opposed to the Deuteronomist’s version but rather fashioned and/or included key details of Solomon’s second formal coronation event (cf. 1 Chr 23:1; 29:22) in order to present David and Solomon on par with other great ancient Near Eastern sovereigns. The Chronicler had a readymade exemplar in the succession scene of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal as recorded in the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon of 672 BC. As a historian, the Chronicler could have had access to this well-documented ANE event through his reading of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah from the period of King Manasseh—a vassal to both Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal—or he may simply have adopted the Gattung, which it represented.

You do not currently have access to this content.