or not in the coherence of the pattern. Moreover, in such a cognitive process, the audience was possibly able to infer the specific intention in such exceptions. Some Chronicler’s exceptions could be merely aesthetic, and others more purposeful. The purpose was relevant to the context, so that they could perceive and accept it. In this sense, we may audience’s discuss different cases of exceptions. Firstly, there are some cases which lack a description of a reign (Jehoahaz) or king’s of the retribution they suffered (Athaliah, Joash, Josiah), or their burial (David, Athaliah, Amon, Zedekiah). However, for those cases, it was not likely to be too difficult for the audience to fill those gaps in the underlying view of retributive pattern. They were presumably able to infer the missing information in the structure in the grammar of retributive pattern. It is also possible that other textual traits, such as the mood of the narration and the last comment on each reign, functioned as grammatically narrator’s king’s guiding clues to producing such inferences. Secondly, there is case of the depiction of Rehoboam (2 Chr 10–12). One may think that the depiction of Rehoboam begins from 2 Chr 10, where failure to answer Rehoboam’s wisely leads to the division of the kingdom (10:1–19). In this sense, reign Rehoboam’s appears to begin in a negative way, which is inconsistent with the strength of his kingdom (12:1a) and his burial (12:16). However, it seems proper to distinguish the secession of northern kingdom Israel (2 Chr 10:1–11:4; 1 Kgs 12:1–24) from the actual reign of Rehoboam. 2 Chronicles 10–12 1 Kings 12:1–24; 14:21–31 Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king. (2 had come to Shechem to make him king. (1 Chr 10:1 ESV) Kgs 12:1 ESV)
or not in the coherence of the pattern. Moreover, in such a cognitive process, the audience was possibly able to infer the Chronicler’s specific intention in such exceptions. Some exceptions could be merely aesthetic, and others more purposeful. The purpose was relevant to the audience’s context, so that they could perceive and accept it. In this sense, we may discuss different cases of exceptions. Firstly, there are some cases which lack a description of a king’s reign (Jehoahaz) or of the retribution they suffered (Athaliah, Joash, Josiah), or their burial (David, Athaliah, Amon, Zedekiah). However, for those cases, it was not likely to be too difficult for the audience to fill those gaps in the underlying view of retributive pattern. They were presumably able to infer the missing information in the structure in the grammar of retributive pattern. It is also possible that other textual traits, such as the mood of the narration and the narrator’s last comment on each king’s reign, functioned as grammatically guiding clues to producing such inferences. Secondly, there is case of the depiction of Rehoboam (2 Chr 10–12). One may think that the depiction of Rehoboam begins from 2 Chr 10, where Rehoboam’s failure to answer wisely leads to the division of the kingdom (10:1–19). In this sense, Rehoboam’s reign appears to begin in a negative way, which is inconsistent with the strength of his kingdom (12:1a) and his burial (12:16). However, it seems proper to distinguish the secession of northern kingdom Israel (2 Chr 10:1–11:4; 1 Kgs 12:1–24) from the actual reign of Rehoboam. 2 Chronicles 10–12 1 Kings 12:1–24; 14:21–31 Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king. (2 Chr 10:1 ESV) Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king. (1 Kgs 12:1 ESV)
%28PhD%20Thesis%29%20THE%20WISDOM%20OF%20CHRONICLES%20Buyoung%20Son%20120107117.docx