When one reads similar accounts in Samuel-Kings and in Chronicles, the question of their relationship naturally arises. Since W.M.L. de Wette the consensus of OT scholarship has considered Samuel-Kings to be the Vorlage of Chronicles. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls required a qualification of this relationship since, as Werner Lemke and others have argued, at least for Samuel, the Vorlage of Chronicles was likely not of the same type as the MT. Beyond this qualification, the consensus received a challenge when Graeme Auld (Kings without Privilege) proposed a Vorlage much smaller than any individual text form of Samuel or Kings. Auld argued that a common source was shared by Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. This common source is virtually the same as the passages shared between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. Julio Barrera-Trebolle (“Kings [MT/LXX] and Chronicles: The Double and Triple Textual Tradition”) has attempted to lend further credence to the common source through a look at the textual witnesses of MT Kings, LXX Kings, and Chronicles. He has argued that the passages which occur in all three form the most stable textual tradition and what is not included are expansions of this stable tradition. Raymond Person Jr. has addressed the issue through the lens of orality studies to argue for a similar challenge to the consensus. Others have responded to these challenges to the consensus model (notably, Isaac Kalimi “Kings with Privilege”); however, this paper intends to address their arguments by introducing another temple account into the conversation: Josephus’s Antiquities. Since the account from Josephus is clearly later and since Josephus makes several explicit statements regarding his method and purpose in writing a history of Israel derived from but distinct to the Hebrew Scriptures, it serves as a suitable point of comparison for reconstructing the Chronicler’s Vorlage and for exploring the role that an author’s historiographical aims play in shaping the account. As a result, the paper will first provide a macro-level comparison of the accounts in MT Kings, LXX Kings, Chronicles, and Josephus. Second, the paper will examine the expansions, omissions, and reworkings of Josephus’s account in relation to Kings and Chronicles by describing their content and exploring their possible motivations. Finally, the paper will show how the analysis of Josephus contributes to the discussion regarding the Vorlage of Chronicles and the role that historiographical aims play in the Chronicler’s reshaping of the temple narrative. In the end, the paper argues that the form of the temple account in Chronicles results from both a slightly different Vorlage than Kings (particularly MT Kings) and from the Chronicler’s historiographical aims. Ignoring either one of these factors may lead to distorting the Chronicler’s authorial aims and thereby his message.