PARALIPOMENI. — Biblical book, the last of the Hebrew canon (kethubhim); in the Septuagint and the Vulgate it is placed before Esdra and Neemia. Originally it constituted a single volume; according to many critics, it was joined to Esdra-Neemia. 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, “discourses of the days,” that is, “annals,” “chronicles.” But the title of the Septuagint prevailed, παραλειπωμένων = Paralipomena (i), that is, “omitted,” because they consider them (erroneously) a supplement to the books of Samuele and the Re. Today many call them Cronache.
S. Girolamo (Ad Paul., 53, 7: PL 22, 548 and Praef. in I Par.) defines them as: « Chronicon totius divinae historiae » or « Instrumenti veteris epitomen », asserting that « absque illo si quis scientiam Scripturarum sibi voluerit arrogare, se ipsum irrideat ». The P. may be divided into four parts: a) I Par. 1-9: genealogies of the twelve tribes of Israel, from Adam to David, with special attention to that of Judah; b) ibid. 10-29: history of David, with brief references to 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 references, 10-11,4, to the schism of Ieroboam) up to Sedecia 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 the Re, follows a pattern into which are fitted: the father’s and mother’s names, the length of the reign, the name of the successor, the place of burial, the moral judgment of the king, and citation of the source of information. In the case of Abia
and Asa, the synchronism with the kings of Israel is noted. It is a religious, not a political, history: it is confined to the Davidic dynasty, highlighting its deeds on behalf of religion and the Temple. It is particularly concerned with levitical and priestly activity and with religious manifestations in their repercussions upon the social life of Israel.
Much has been written about the purpose of the P., with differing conclusions. They intend to show how Israel’s prosperity depends upon the theocracy, whose foundations are the dynasty and the Temple. The Davidic dynasty was desired by the consent of the people, but first of all 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 ff.; 33, 7-8). God, therefore, insofar as he is present in the Temple, in the midst of Israel, is its central point. Fidelity to the divine law and zeal for worship confer eternal stability upon the dynasty and prosperity upon 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. Just as the genealogies (1-9) prove the authenticity of post-exilic Israel, so from II Par. 36, 21-23 it can be seen that its messianic destinies still endure and tend toward fulfillment, despite the exile.
The P. were written after the exile and, according to tradition, during the period of Persian rule. Some modern scholars prefer the Hellenistic period (after 330 B.C.) because: a) the genealogy of Zorobabel 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 seem to presuppose that Persian rule had already passed away. These, however, 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 (Esdra as author), Albright; 300, Weiser, Torrey, Rowley; the time of Esdra, Snaith; the fourth century, Bentzen, etc.
The traditional view attributes the composition of the P. to Esdra. Today, various scholars think of an unknown author from the Hellenistic period (fourth-third centuries B.C.). The author made use of not a few sources and documents, sometimes citing them explicitly, 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); “discourses (= deeds) of the kings of Israel” (ibid. 33, 18); it is not certain whether these were one and the same work, but they are distinct from the canonical books of the Re; b) midhräism of the books of the Re (ibid. 24, 27) and of the prophet Addo (ibid. 13, 22); c) words of Samuele the seer, of Nathan the prophet, and of Gad the seer (I Par. 29, 29); words of Semeia the prophet and of Addo the seer (II Par. 12, 15); of Ichu (ibid. 20, 34), and of the seers (ibid. 33, 19). In addition, the P. make use of the canonical sources: the Pentateuch, Giosuè, Samuele, and the Re; the vision of Isaia (ibid. 32, 32); the lamentations of Geremia for Iosia (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. emerges from their agreement with the Pentateuch, Samuele, and the Re, as well as from the care with which the sources used are cited. The school of J. Wellhausen, however, made every effort to discredit them, attributing to them contradictions with the other sacred books and a tendentious character.
In reality, the P. constitute an obstacle to the documentary theory of the “critics.” According to Wellhausen, the P. would be an attempt to adapt history so as to demonstrate the Mosaic origin of the priestly ideal (P), which, instead, would have arisen shortly before through the work of Ezechiele and his school. Modern scholars, however, are more cautious. Some deny that the P. derive from P and derive them instead from D, or from D and P combined in different recensions. According to others, the P. would connect the priestly ideal not with
Mosè, ma con David; darebbero più importanza ai laici che ai leviti; starebbero per i leviti contro i sacerdoti (Pfeiffer, Noth, Engnell, Bentzen); sarebbero contrari a Ez. 40-48. P. sarebbe un compromesso tra Paralipomeni, Esdra, Neemia ed Ez. 40-48 (Welch). I P. conoscerebbero tutto il Pentateuco (Bentzen). Non pochi ne stimano in parte il valore storico: avrebbero usato buone fonti d'informazioni (von Rad, Welch, Van Selms, A. Noordzij). Per altri il loro autore è un midhräisico della storia (Oesterley-Th. H. Robinson). Alcuni critici moderni, negando l'unità dei P., vi riscontrano vari redattori. Ad es., R. Kittel ne distinse quattro: 1°-2° levita, 3° midhräisico, 4° il Cronista; Rothstein-Hänel un tardo aderente a P.; Oesterley-Th. H. Robinson P e D.; Snaith PD mescolati. Per E. Jacob i P. sarebbero in polemica contro P. Altri critici ammettono l'unità dei P., ad es., G. T. Manely-G. C. Robinson-A. U. Stibbs. Peraltro le differenze di stile tra 1-9 ed il resto del libro possono dipendere dalle fonti documentarie genealogiche: l'interessamento per il culto ed il principio della retribuzione applicato alla storia possono provenire da uno stesso autore, che ha utilizzato fonti diverse. Le difficoltà esistono. Basta confrontare i testi paralleli di P. con Samuele e i Re (ad es., I Reg. 15, 14; 22, 44 con II Par. 14, 2-5; 17, 6; I Reg. 22, 49 con II Par. 20, 36 ecc.). I numeri sembrano enormi (I Par. 22, 14; 29, 4; II Par. 13, 3; 17, 14, 8; ecc.). I P. omettono o mitigano i racconti dell'idolatria d'Israele, i peccati di David. Mutano, ad es., I Reg. 3, 4 in II Par. 1, 3; II Sam. 24, 1. 16 sgg. in I Par. 21, 1. 15 sg. 26. Ma tali antologie sono ben risolte dai commentatori cattolici. A conferma dell'oggettività dei P. è da citare l'iscrizione di Siloe (cf. II Par. 32, 30) e la recentissima stele di Assurnasirpal II (883-859 a. C.) scavata a Nimrud nel 1951 nel Palazzo reale, nella quale il monarca assiro descrive la grande festa dell'inaugurazione dell'edificio che durò 10 giorni, dopo i quali ognuno ritornò a casa con gioia; le 69.574 persone presenti furono rifornite di pane, vino e bagni (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 luglio 1951, p. 134 sg.). Ciò conferma II Par. 7, 8-10.
Il testo masoretico dei P. è molto corrotto, la versione dei Settanta (che secondo alcuni è la versione di Teodozione) è molto libera.
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