PARALIPOMENA. - Biblical book, the last in the Hebrew canon (kethubhim); in the Septuagint and the Vulgate it is placed before Ezra and Nehemiah. Originally it constituted a single volume; according to many critics it was united with Ezra-Nehemiah. The Septuagint divided it into two, followed by the Masoretic text (cf. the Venetian edition of Felice da Prato, 1517). The Hebrew title is Dibhrē haj-jāmim, "words of the days," that is, "annals," "chronicles." But the Septuagint title παραλειπωμένων = Paralipomena (i) prevailed, that is, "things omitted," because they (erroneously) regard them as a supplement to the books of Samuel and Kings. Today many call them Chronicles.
St. Jerome (Ad Paul., 53, 7: PL 22, 548 and Praef. in I Par.) defines them as: "Chronicon totius divinae historiae" or "Instrumenti veteris epitomen," affirming that "absque illo si quis scientiam Scripturarum sibi voluerit arrogare, se ipsum irrideat." The P. can be divided into a parts: a) I Par. 1-9: genealogies of the 12 tribes of Israel, from Adam to David, with special regard to that of Judah; b) ibid. 10-29: history of David with brief notices on the death of Saul and the ruin of his house; c) II Par. 1-9: history of Solomon; d) ibid. 10-36: history of the kings of Judah (with notices, 10-11:4, on the schism of Jeroboam) down to Zedekiah and the end of the Babylonian exile, and finally the decree of Cyrus.
The history of the P., although less rigidly than the books of Kings, follows a scheme in which are framed: paternity and maternity, duration of the reign, name of the successor, place of burial, moral judgment on the king, citation of the source of information. Of Abijah and Asa the synchronism with the kings of Israel is noted. It is a religious history, not a political one: it restricts itself to the Davidic dynasty, highlighting its deeds in favor of religion and the Temple. It concerns itself in particular with Levitical-priestly activity and with religious manifestations in their repercussions on the social life of Israel.
Much has been written on the purpose of the P. with differing conclusions. They intend to show how the prosperity of Israel depends on the theocracy, whose foundations are the dynasty and the Temple. The Davidic dynasty was willed by the consent of the people, but first by God (II Par. 13, 4-12; 23, 3; 33, 7-8 etc.) as a reward for the "house" built for God by David-Solomon (I Par. 17, 7-27; 22, 10; 28, 6 ff.; II Par. 6, 7-11, 16 f.; 33, 7-8). God therefore, insofar as He is present in the Temple, in the midst of Israel, is its fulcrum. Fidelity to the divine law and zeal for worship confer eternal stability on the dynasty and prosperity on the nation; infidelity brings misfortune. What was foretold by God (II Par. 7, 10-22; 6, 16; 33, 7-8; etc.) the P. demonstrate from the history of the individual kings of Judah and of the nation. David and Solomon are the models to be followed in religious, liturgical and social organization and in their theocratic zeal. As the genealogies (1-9) prove the authenticity of post-exilic Israel, so from II Par. 36, 21-23 it is discerned that its messianic destinies still subsist and tend toward fulfillment, despite the exile.
The P. were written after the exile and, according to tradition, in the time of Persian domination. Some moderns prefer the Hellenistic period (after 330 B.C.) because: a) the genealogy of Zerubbabel is extended to the sixth generation in the Masoretic text, and in the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac to the eleventh (I Par. 3, 19 ff.); b) the expression "king of the Persians" (II Par. 36, 20) would suggest that Persian domination had already declined. However, these are not decisive arguments. Various dates have been proposed: 520 B.C., Welch; 432 (400), Rothstein-Hänel; 350, W. O. E. Oesterley-T. H. Robinson; 300-250, H. W. Robinson; 250, Pfeiffer; 398 (Ezra as author), Albright; 300, Weiser, Torrey, Rowley; time of Ezra, Snaith; 4th century, Bentzen, etc.
The traditional opinion attributes the composition of the P. to Ezra. Various scholars today think of an unknown author of the Hellenistic period (4th-3rd centuries B.C.). The author utilized not a few sources and documents, sometimes citing them explicitly as well, namely: a) "books of the kings of Israel and Judah" (II Par. 27, 7); "books of the kings of Judah and Israel" (ibid. 16, 11); "words (= deeds) of the kings of Israel" (ibid. 33, 18); it is not certain whether they are the same work, but they are distinguished from the canonical books of Kings; b) midhräism of the books of Kings (ibid. 24, 27) and of Addo the prophet (ibid. 13, 22); c) words of Samuel the seer, of Nathan the prophet, of Gad the seer (I Par. 29, 29); words of Shemaiah the prophet and of Addo the seer (II Par. 12, 15); of Jehu (ibid. 20, 34), of the seers (ibid. 33, 19). Furthermore the P. utilize the canonical sources: the Pentateuch, Joshua, Samuel, Kings; the vision of Isaiah (ibid. 32, 32); the lamentations of Jeremiah over Josiah (ibid. 35, 25).
The canonicity of the P. has never been doubted. Perhaps they are alluded to in Mt. 23, 35 (cf. II Par. 24, 20-22). The objectivity of the P. stands out from their concord with the Pentateuch, Samuel and Kings, as well as from the diligence with which the sources used are cited. The school of J. Wellhausen, however, made every effort to discredit them, charging them with contradictions with the other sacred books and with tendentiousness.
In reality the P. are an obstacle to the documentary theory of the "critics." According to Wellhausen, in fact, the P. would be an attempt to adapt history to demonstrate the Mosaic origin of the priestly ideal (P), which instead would have arisen shortly before through the work of Ezekiel and his school. However, moderns are more cautious. Some deny that the P. come from P and derive them from D or from D and P mixed in different recensions. According to others the P. would connect the priestly ideal not with Moses, but with David; they would give more importance to the laity than to the Levites; they would side with the Levites against the priests (Pfeiffer, Noth, Engnell, Bentzen); they would be contrary to Ezek. 40-48. P. would be a compromise between Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah and Ezek. 40-48 (Welch). The P. would know the entire Pentateuch (Bentzen). Not a few esteem in part their historical value: they would have used good sources of information (von Rad, Welch, Van Selms, A. Noordzij). For others their author is a midrashist of history (Oesterley-Th. H. Robinson). Some modern critics, denying the unity of the P., find in them various redactors. For example, R. Kittel distinguished four: 1st-2nd Levite, 3rd midrashist, 4th the Chronicler; Rothstein-Hänel a late adherent to P.; Oesterley-Th. H. Robinson P and D.; Snaith PD mixed. For E. Jacob the P. would be in polemic against P. Other critics admit the unity of the P., for example, G. T. Manely-G. C. Robinson-A. U. Stibbs. Moreover the differences of style between 1-9 and the rest of the book can depend on documentary genealogical sources: the interest in worship and the principle of retribution applied to history can come from the same author, who used different sources. The difficulties exist. It is enough to compare the parallel texts of P. with Samuel and Kings (for example, I Kings 15, 14; 22, 44 with II Chron. 14, 2-5; 17, 6; I Kings 22, 49 with II Chron. 20, 36 etc.). The numbers seem enormous (I Chron. 22, 14; 29, 4; II Chron. 13, 3; 17, 14, 8; etc.). The P. omit or mitigate the accounts of Israel's idolatry, the sins of David. They change, for example, I Kings 3, 4 into II Chron. 1, 3; II Sam. 24, 1. 16 ff. into I Chron. 21, 1. 15 f. 26. But such anthologies are well resolved by Catholic commentators. In confirmation of the objectivity of the P. one should cite the Siloam inscription (cf. II Chron. 32, 30) and the very recent stele of Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 B.C.) excavated at Nimrud in 1951 in the royal palace, in which the Assyrian monarch describes the great feast of the inauguration of the building that lasted 10 days, after which everyone returned home with joy; the 69,574 people present were supplied with bread, wine and baths (cf. E. L. Mallowan, The treasures and triumphs of Assurnasirpal-II, newly discovered in the third season's excavations at Nimrud, in The illustrated London news, 28 July 1951, p. 134 f.). This confirms II Chron. 7, 8-10.
The Masoretic text of the P. is very corrupt; the Septuagint version (which according to some is the version of Theodotion) is very free.
BBL.: commenti cattolici: F. de Hummelauer, Parigi 1905; M. Sales, Torino 1928; A. Noordzij, Kampen 1937-38; J. Guttsberger, Bonn 1939; I. B. Valvekens, Brugge 1942; G. Ricciotti, Firenze 1948; L. Marchal, Parigi 1949. Commenti cattolici: R. Kittel, Gottlinga 1902; T. L. Curtis-A. A. Madsen, Edimburgo 1910; J. W. Rothstein-J. Hänel, Lipsia 1927; A. van Selms, Groningen 1930; id., ivi 1947. Studi cattolici: A. Noordzij, Les intentions du Chroniste, in Rev. bibl., 49 (1940), pp. 161-68; A. Bea, Neuere Arbeiten zum Problem der Chronikbücher, in Biblica, 22 (1941), pp. 46-58; J. Coppens, Histoire critique des livres de l'Ancien Testament, 3e ed., Bruges 1942, p. 120 sgg. Studi cattolici: W. F. Albright, The date and personality of the Chronicles, in Journal of biblical literature, 40 (1921), pp. 104-24; G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild der Chronisten, Stoccarda 1930; id., Die levitische Predigt in den Büchern der Chronik, in Festschrift O. Prochsch, Lipsia 1934, pp. 113-24; M. Noth, Eine siedlungsgeographische Liste in Chron. 2 und 4, in Zeitschr. d. Deutsch. Pol.-Vereins. 55 (1932), pp. 97-124; J. Hänel, Das Recht des Opferschlachtens in der chronistischen Literatur, in Zeitschr. f. alttet. Wissenschaftl. 14 (1937), pp. 46-67; B. Luther, Kähäl und 'Edah als Hilfsmittel der Quellencheidung in Priestercodex und in der Chronik, ibid., 15 (1938), pp. 44-63; A. C. Welch, The work of the Chronicles, its purpose and its date (Schweiz lectures, 1938), Oxford 1939; W. O. E. Oesterley-Th. H. Robinson, An introduction to the books of the Old Testament, Londra 1940, pp. 109-19; G. T. Manely-G. C. Robinson-A. M. Stibbs, The new Bible handbook, Londra 1950, pp. 175-79; H. H. Rowley, in T. W. Manson, A companion to the Bible, Edimburgo 1950, pp. 75-77; N. H. Snaith, in H. H. Rowley, The Old Testament and modern study. A generation of discovery and research, Oxford 1951, pp. 107-14. Bonaventura Mariani