Chapter IX

=1‒17= (compare Nehemiah xi. 1‒19).
THE HEADS OF THE FAMILIES WHICH DWELT IN JERUSALEM.

Verses 2‒17 contain the lists of the heads of families of Judah (=3‒6=), of Benjamin (=7‒9=), of the priests (=10‒13=), of the Levites (= 14‒16=), and of the porters (=17=), who dwelt in Jerusalem at some period after the Return (compare note on verse 2). A similar list (with some variations which are recorded in their places in the following notes) occurs in Nehemiah xi. 3‒19. The partial agreement coupled with the partial divergence of the two lists may be explained by supposing that both are extracts independently made from the same document, and have been inserted, one in Chronicles, the other in Nehemiah, lest the peculiarities of either list should be lost. We may conclude from Nehemiah xi. 1, 2 that both lists represent the population of Jerusalem, after Nehemiah had taken measures for increasing it. Another way of accounting for the divergences in the two lists is to suppose that the present list represents the Jerusalem of a later period than the list in Nehemiah See also verse 17.

¹So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and, behold, they
are written in the book of the kings of Israel: and Judah was
carried away captive to Babylon for their transgression.

=1.= _in the book of the kings of Israel_] See Introduction § 5, B (3). The LXX., however, reads “in the book of the kings of Israel _and Judah_.” With the LXX. reading, _all Israel_ must be taken as subject of the verb _was carried away_, but of course the phrase must still be taken as meaning an “Israel” = Judah.

²Now the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions in
their cities were, Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the
Nethinim.

=2.= _the first inhabitants_] It has been thought that the word “first” here refers to _pre-eminence_ (compare Nehemiah xi. 3), and that the list which follows (verses 4 ff.) is a list of _chief men_. It is better, however, to take “first” in a temporal sense, meaning “pre-exilic,” and to suppose that the Chronicler or whoever placed this chapter here mistakenly imagined this list to be a pre-exilic register. That it is not really pre-exilic is certain by reason of its vital connection with the post-exilic list in Nehemiah xi. 3‒19. The suggestion that the resemblances are due to the continuity of population in Jerusalem before and after the exile is utterly improbable.

_in their cities_] The phrase is apparently an abridgment of words in Nehemiah xi. 3, and is really meaningless in the present context. In Nehemiah it signifies “townships in Judah” where certain persons, who now elected to dwell in Jerusalem, had formerly resided.

_Israel_] i.e. laymen as distinguished from men of Levitical descent. According to verse 3 _Israel_ included at least Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh (compare Psalms lxxx. 2, where Judah――the speaker――associates Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh with herself in her appeal to the God of _Israel_, See also note on 2 Chronicles xxx. 18). This is a totally different usage from that of earlier times, when _Israel_ meant the Northern kingdom, and _Judah_ the Southern.

_Nethinim_] These were a class of Temple servants reckoned as inferior to the Levites. Perhaps they were of foreign extraction and included the Gibeonites (compare Joshua ix. 23). They are mentioned nowhere else in the Old Testament except in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

³And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the
children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim and
Manasseh;

=3.= _of Ephraim and Manasseh_] See note on 2 Chronicles xxx. 18.

=4‒6= (compare Nehemiah xi. 4‒6).
THE SONS OF JUDAH.

⁴Uthai the son of Ammihud, the son of Omri, the son of Imri, the
son of Bani, of the children of Perez the son of Judah.

=4.= _Uthai_] In Nehemiah _Athaiah_. The two words are more alike in Hebrew than in English and are perhaps various readings of one name.

_Perez_] compare ii. 4, 5. We have here (verses 4‒6) a threefold division of the tribe of Judah into the descendants of Perez, Shelah, and Zerah, just as in Numbers xxvi. 20.

⁵And of the Shilonites; Asaiah the firstborn, and his sons.

=5.= _Shilonites_] Or _Shelanites_ as Numbers xxvi. 20; they were descendants of Shelah, who is mentioned as a son of Judah in ii. 3. For other descendants, see iv. 21 f., and Nehemiah xi. 5.

_Asaiah_] In Nehemiah xi. 5 _Maaseiah_, a kindred name.

⁶And of the sons of Zerah; Jeuel, and their brethren, six
hundred and ninety.

=6.= _Jeuel_] In Nehemiah xi. 5 the “sons of Zerah” are missing.

_six hundred and ninety_] Compare Nehemiah xi. 6 (_four hundred threescore and eight_ sons of _Perez_) where _Perez_ may be an error for _Zerah_.

=7‒9= (compare Nehemiah xi. 7‒9).
THE SONS OF BENJAMIN.

⁷And of the sons of Benjamin; Sallu the son of Meshullam, the
son of Hodaviah, the son of Hassenuah;

=7.= _Sallu_] His genealogy is differently stated in Nehemiah xi. 7, but see next note.

_the son of Hodaviah, the son of Hassenuah_] Read perhaps =Judah, the son of Hassenuah= (compare Nehemiah xi. 9). _Hodaviah_ and _Judah_ could easily be confused in Hebrew.

⁸and Ibneiah the son of Jeroham, and Elah the son of Uzzi, the
son of Michri, and Meshullam the son of Shephatiah, the son of
Reuel, the son of Ibnijah;

=8.= _Ibneiah, Elah, Meshullam_] Not mentioned in Nehemiah xi.

⁹and their brethren, according to their generations, nine
hundred and fifty and six. All these men were heads of fathers’
_houses_ by their fathers’ houses.

=9.= _nine hundred and fifty and six_] 928 in Nehemiah xi. 8.

=10‒13= (compare Nehemiah xi. 10‒14).
THE PRIESTS.

¹⁰And of the priests; Jedaiah, and Jehoiarib, and Jachin;

=10.= _Jehoiarib_] Spelt _Joiarib_ in Nehemiah xi. 10. _Jehoiarib_ and _Jedaiah_ occur as names of the first and second courses of the priests in xxiv. 7; Nehemiah xii. 6, 19. The Maccabees were of the course of Joarib (= Jehoiarib); 1 Maccabees ii. 1.

_Jachin_] The name of the twenty-first course; xxiv. 17.

¹¹and Azariah¹ the son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam, the son
of Zadok, the son of Meraioth, the son of Ahitub, the ruler of
the house of God;

¹ In Nehemiah xi. 11, _Seraiah_.

=11.= _Azariah_] In Nehemiah xi. 11, _Seraiah_.

_the ruler of the house of God_] This title could perhaps be borne by the high-priest (2 Chronicles xxxi. 10, 13), but in any case it was not confined to him (2 Chronicles xxxv. 8, where several such “rulers” are mentioned; compare also Jeremiah xx. 1; Acts iv. 1).

¹²and Adaiah the son of Jeroham, the son of Pashhur, the son of
Malchijah, and Maasai the son of Adiel, the son of Jahzerah, the
son of Meshullam, the son of Meshillemith, the son of Immer;

=12.= _Malchijah_] The name of the fifth course; xxiv. 9.

_Maasai_] The reading of Nehemiah xi. 13 _Amashsai_ is corrupt. The form given in Chronicles is open to suspicion. Probably the true reading is lost.

_Adiel_] In Nehemiah _Azareel_.

_Immer_] The name of the sixteenth course; xxiv. 14.

¹³and their brethren, heads of their fathers’ houses, a thousand
and seven hundred and threescore; very able men for the work of
the service of the house of God.

=13.= _a thousand and seven hundred and threescore_] Only the five “courses” of priests mentioned above (viz. Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and Jachin, verse 10, and Malchijah and Immer, verse 12) seem to be included in this reckoning. Some commentators, however, regard Azariah (= Seraiah) in verse 11 as the name of a new course, which took the place of one of the courses reckoned in xxiv. 7‒18. If this be right we have here the sum of _six_ courses.

In Nehemiah xi. 12‒14 the number of the priests is given on a different plan; _eight hundred and twenty-two_ “did the work of the house”; _two hundred and forty-two_ were “chiefs of fathers’ houses”; _an hundred and twenty-eight_ were “mighty men of valour.” The total falls far short of the _thousand and seven hundred and threescore_ of Chronicles We have not sufficient data on which to base any explanation of the different totals.

_very able men_] The Hebrew is the same as in Nehemiah xi. 14 and is usually rendered _mighty men of valour_. The sense, however, is no doubt correctly given by Revised Version _very able_, or _efficient_. Compare 2 Chronicles xxvi. 17.

=14‒16= (compare Nehemiah xi. 15‒18).
THE LEVITES.

¹⁴And of the Levites; Shemaiah the son of Hasshub, the son of
Azrikam, the son of Hashabiah, of the sons of Merari;

=14.= _of the sons of Merari_] In Nehemiah _the sons of Bunni_, which is probably a corruption of the reading of Chronicles Otherwise of the three great Levitical families, Merari, Asaph, and Jeduthun, mentioned here, only the last two appear in Nehemiah.

¹⁵and Bakbakkar, Heresh, and Galal, and Mattaniah the son of
Mica, the son of Zichri¹, the son of Asaph;

¹ In Nehemiah xi. 17, _Zabdi_.

=15.= _Bakbakkar, Heresh, and Galal_] The reading appears to be corrupt, for the analogy of the latter half of the verse as well as of verses 14, 16 leads us to expect something more than bare names. Neither the LXX. nor the Vulgate gives any real help for emending the clause. The corresponding words in Nehemiah (xi. 17) are _Bakbukiah the second among his brethren_.

¹⁶and Obadiah² the son of Shemaiah³, the son of Galal, the son
of Jeduthun, and Berechiah the son of Asa, the son of Elkanah,
that dwelt in the villages of the Netophathites.

² In Nehemiah xi. 17, _Abda_.

³ In Nehemiah xi. 17, _Shammua_.

=16.= _Obadiah the son of Shemaiah_] In Nehemiah _Abda the son of Shammua_. Which was the reading of the original document cannot be determined.

_Jeduthun_] See note on xvi. 41.

_Berechiah the son of Asa, the son of Elkanah_] Not mentioned in Nehemiah He probably represented the Kohathite division of the singers; compare vi. 33‒38 (18‒23 _Hebrew_), where the name _Elkanah_ occurs several times in the genealogy of the Kohathites.

_the villages of the Netophathites_] Compare Nehemiah xii. 28, 29 (Revised Version), whence it appears that these villages were close to Jerusalem. The exact site is uncertain.

=17‒27= (compare Nehemiah xi. 19; 1 Chronicles xxvi. 1‒19).
ORGANISATION AND DUTIES OF THE PORTERS (DOORKEEPERS).

=17‒27.= The same subject is treated in xxvi. 1‒19, and this fact has been urged as an argument for the view that chapter ix. is an addition to the Chronicler’s work (see Introduction p. xxiii). But it is also reasonable to suppose that the Chronicler would here give a register of inhabitants of Jerusalem (which could not be included in the list of the separate tribes), and such a register would probably give a survey of the Levitical classes.

The verses present on analysis several confusing features, see notes on verses 17, 22, 25, 33.

¹⁷And the porters; Shallum, and Akkub, and Talmon, and Ahiman,
and their brethren: Shallum was the chief;

=17.= _And the porters_] Render, =doorkeepers= as in xvi. 38 and xxvi. 1. In Solomon’s Temple there were “keepers of the threshold,” three in number (2 Kings xxv. 18), priests in rank (2 Kings xii. 9).

A distinction between the doorkeepers and the Levites (verse 14) seems to be implied, but in verses 19, 26 the doorkeepers, or at any rate their leaders, are called Levites (compare Nehemiah xi. 15, 19 with 1 Chronicles xxvi.). The supposed distinction may have died out before the Chronicler’s period, or perhaps earlier and later stages are reflected in the chapter (see also the note on verse 26).

_Shallum...Ahiman_] These two names are absent from Nehemiah xi. 19 together with the clause _Shallum was the chief_. This omission of all reference to Shallum must be accidental.

_Shallum, and Akkub, and Talmon_] The three names represent families, not individuals; compare Ezra ii. 42 = Nehemiah vii. 45, where the fuller form is given, _the children of Shallum, ... the children of Talmon, the children of Akkub...._ These names persist in the five lists of porters which refer to post-exilic times; Ezra ii. 42 = Nehemiah vii. 45; Nehemiah xi. 19 = 1 Chronicles ix. 17 (_Shallum_ is to be supplied in Nehemiah from Chronicles); Nehemiah xii. 5 (_Meshullam_ = _Shallum_). For the Chronicler’s traditions of Levites, singers, and doorkeepers of the Davidic period, see chapters xv., xxiv. ff.

_Ahiman_] Elsewhere in the Old Testament this name occurs only among the names of the sons of Anak, and it is probable that the Chronicler (or some scribe) made here an error of transcription, and that AHIMAN has arisen from the word AHEIHEM “their brethren” which follows. A fourth name was probably given in the original text, for see verse 26.

¹⁸who hitherto _waited_ in the king’s gate eastward: they were
the porters for the camp of the children of Levi.

=18.= _who_] i.e. _Shallum_ (verse 17), called _Shelemiah_ in xxvi. 14 (= Meshelemiah, xxvi. verse 1). As mentioned above, a family is meant.

_hitherto_] i.e. to the time of the Chronicler.

_the king’s gate eastward_] That the king had an entrance into the Temple named after him appears from 2 Kings xvi. 18, and that this gate was on the east from Ezekiel xlvi. 1, 2.

_for the camp of the children of Levi_] i.e. the Temple; but the phrase, which is derived from Numbers ii. 17, in its original context of course signifies the Tabernacle of the Mosaic period. Doubtless it is used with the implication that the institution of the gatekeepers dated back to that age: compare verse 19 _ad fin._, and contrast verse 22.

¹⁹And Shallum the son of Kore, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of
Korah, and his brethren, of his father’s house, the Korahites,
were over the work of the service, keepers of the gates¹ of the
tabernacle²: and their fathers had been over the camp of the
LORD, keepers of the entry;

¹ Hebrew _thresholds_.

² Hebrew _Tent_.

=19.= _over the camp of the LORD, keepers_] We might expect the reference to the Temple or Tabernacle to be continued; but, as nothing is said in the Pentateuch of “keepers of the entry _to the tabernacle_,” probably the entry _to the camp_, not to the tabernacle, is meant in the present phrase. With this view agrees the mention of Phinehas (verse 20), for it apparently was the profanation of the camp in general, not of the tabernacle, which Phinehas avenged (Numbers xxv. 6‒8), thus earning a blessing (Numbers xxv. 11‒13).

²⁰and Phinehas the son of Eleazar was ruler over them in time
past, _and_ the LORD was with him.

=20.= and _the LORD was with him_] Render, =May the Lord be with him=, a pious exclamation, customary on mentioning the name of a famous and righteous person deceased. The phrase is common in later Jewish literature; but this passage seems to be the earliest instance of its use.

²¹Zechariah the son of Meshelemiah was porter of the door of the
tent of meeting. All these which were chosen to be porters in
the gates¹ were two hundred and twelve.

¹ Hebrew _thresholds_.

=21.= _Zechariah the son of Meshelemiah_] Compare xxvi. 2, 14, according to which Zechariah’s watch was on the north.

_the tent of meeting_] The reference would be to the Mosaic tent, if the verse be taken, as is natural, in close connection with verses 19, 20. If the verse be treated in conjunction with verse 22 it must refer to the tent of the ark in David’s time. The ambiguity is perhaps intentional.

²²These were reckoned by genealogy in their villages, whom David
and Samuel the seer did ordain in their set¹ office.

¹ Or, _trust_.

=22.= _All these_] Compare Ezra ii. 42 (= Nehemiah vii. 45); Nehemiah xi. 19. The discrepancy in numbers between Chronicles and Nehemiah and also between Nehemiah vii. and Nehemiah xi. may be explained by supposing some difference in the manner of reckoning or some difference in the period referred to.

_in their villages_] Compare verses 16 and 25.

_whom David ... did ordain_] The Chronicler attributes to David the organisation of the priests (xxiv. 3), of the Levites (xxiii. 27; xxiv. 31), of the singers (xxv. 1 ff.), and of the doorkeepers (in this passage). It has been thought that this verse is at variance with verses 18, 19, where the Mosaic origin of the gatekeepers seems to be implied. But in answer it may be said that the Chronicler is guilty of no inconsistency in ascribing the _origin_ of the doorkeepers to the Mosaic period and saying here that David and Samuel “ordained them in their set office,” for the phrase refers, not to their origin, but to their _organisation_. For another suggestion see below on verse 26.

_Samuel_] The association of Samuel with the organisation of the sanctuary is confined to this passage, and is a significant illustration of the working of late Jewish thought, which was little concerned with historic probability and much with edification. The tradition has probably arisen from the remark in 1 Samuel iii. 15, that Samuel “opened the doors of the house of the Lord.” As Samuel died before the reign of David, the Chronicler doubtless does not intend to represent him as contemporary with David in the organisation of the Temple, but probably supposes that Samuel’s work was done in connection with the tent, which according to the Chronicler was located in Gibeon (2 Chronicles i. 3).

_the seer_] For the title, xxvi. 28, xxix. 29; 1 Samuel ix. 9; and compare 2 Chronicles xvi. 7.

_in their set office_] or _in their trust_; i.e. in their responsible positions.

²³So they and their children had the oversight of the gates of
the house of the LORD, even the house of the tabernacle¹, by
wards.

¹ Hebrew _Tent_.

=23.= _the house of the tabernacle_] margin _Tent_. The phrase designates the period before the building of the Temple.

²⁴On¹ the four sides were the porters, toward the east, west,
north, and south.

¹ Hebrew _Towards the four winds_.

=24.= _On the four sides_] Fuller details are given in xxvi. 14‒18.

²⁵And their brethren, in their villages, were to come in every
seven days from time to time to be with them:

=25.= _in their villages_] No special villages inhabited by porters are mentioned, but perhaps porters as well as singers dwelt in the “villages of the Netophathites” (verse 16; Nehemiah xii. 28, Revised Version).

²⁶for the four chief porters, who were Levites, were in a set
office, and were over the chambers and over the treasuries in
the house of God. ²⁷And they lodged round about the house of
God, because the charge _thereof_ was upon them, and to them
pertained the opening thereof morning by morning.

=26.= _the four chief porters, who were Levites_] It seems clear from this verse (and from the structure of the chapter, compare verses 10, 14, 17――as is pointed out in the note on verse 17) that the doorkeepers were not, as a body, Levites; and according to verse 25 they dwelt outside Jerusalem, whilst their leaders (verse 27) were within the city. Perhaps this distinction between the leaders and the rank and file could be used to explain the supposed inconsistency (if any exists――see above verse 22, note on _whom David ..._) between verses 19 and 22, as regards the tradition of origin: it might be said that whilst the leaders claimed that their office dated from the time of Moses (verse 19), the rank and file traced their institution to David (verse 22). (In 2 Chronicles xxxiv. 9 Levites appear exercising the duties of doorkeepers, but this does not prove that all doorkeepers were Levites.)

_chambers_] i.e. store-chambers in which tithes and sacred vessels were kept; compare 2 Chronicles xxxi. 5, 11, 12; Nehemiah xiii. 4‒9: in verse 33 of this chapter they seem to be in use also as rooms in which Levites could dwell. The chambers were probably built as outbuildings round the Court of the Temple; compare xxiii. 28, xxviii. 12.

=28, 29.=
DUTIES OF THE LEVITES.

²⁸And certain of them had charge of the vessels of service; for
by tale were they brought in and by tale were they taken out.

=28.= _And certain of them_] The reference is to the Levites. The contents of verses 28, 29 clearly refer to Levitical duties (compare xxiii. 29), and the transition from porters to Levites is made easier by the fact that the four porters last mentioned (verses 26, 27) are Levites. Some commentators hold that the paragraph dealing with the duties of the Levites begins in verse 26 with the words “_And they were over_,” etc.

²⁹Some of them also were appointed over the furniture, and over
all the vessels of the sanctuary, and over the fine flour, and
the wine, and the oil, and the frankincense, and the spices.

=29.= compare xxiii. 29.

=30.=
A PRIESTLY DUTY.

³⁰And some of the sons of the priests prepared the confection of
the spices.

=30.= _the sons of the priests_] i.e. “members of the priesthood, priests.” Compare 2 Chronicles xxv. 13, “the soldiers of the army” (literally “the sons of the troop”) and the common expression “the sons of the prophets.”

_confection_] (For the word, compare 1 Samuel viii. 13, Revised Version text and margin) This “ointment” was peculiarly holy (Exodus xxx. 23‒25). The Levites might have charge of the oil and spices (verse 29), but only the priests might make the confection.

=31, 32.=
OTHER LEVITICAL DUTIES.

³¹And Mattithiah, one of the Levites, who was the firstborn of
Shallum the Korahite, had the set office over the things that
were baked in pans.

=31.= _who was the firstborn of Shallum_] In xxvi. 2 the firstborn of Meshelemiah (= Shallum) is called _Zechariah_. Probably _Mattithiah_ and _Zechariah_ represent _each_ a household belonging to an elder branch of the great family of _Shallum_.

³²And some of their brethren, of the sons of the Kohathites,
were over the shewbread, to prepare it every sabbath.

=32.= _the shewbread_] Literally _the bread of the Row_ (or _of the Pile_), for it had to be arranged in order before the Lord (Leviticus xxiv. 6). The Chronicler prefers this term to the older “Bread of the Presence” (i.e. of Jehovah). See more fully Driver, _Exodus_, pp. 274, 275, in this series.

_to prepare it every sabbath_] “Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually” (Leviticus xxiv. 8). In 2 Chronicles ii. 4 (= ii. 3, _Hebrew_) it is called _the continual shewbread_ (literally “the continual Row”).

³³And these are the singers, heads of fathers’ _houses_ of
the Levites, _who dwelt_ in the chambers _and were_ free _from
other service_: for they were employed in their work day and
night. ³⁴These were heads of fathers’ _houses_ of the Levites,
throughout their generations, chief men: these dwelt at
Jerusalem.

=33.= _And these are_] This verse may be intended as a conclusion to verses 15, 16, for the names there given are those of singers; compare Nehemiah xi. 17. On the other hand it may have been intended as the heading of such a list as appears in vi. 33‒47 (= 18‒32, Hebrew), the list itself having somehow been omitted.

_day and night_] Compare Psalms cxxxiv. 1; Revelation iv. 8.

=35‒44= (= viii. 29‒38).
THE GENEALOGY OF THE HOUSE OF SAUL.

³⁵And in Gibeon there dwelt the father of Gibeon, Jeiel, whose
wife’s name was Maacah: ³⁶and his firstborn son Abdon, and Zur,
and Kish, and Baal, and Ner, and Nadab; ³⁷and Gedor, and Ahio,
and Zechariah, and Mikloth. ³⁸And Mikloth begat Shimeam. And
they also dwelt with their brethren in Jerusalem, over against
their brethren. ³⁹And Ner begat Kish; and Kish begat Saul; and
Saul begat Jonathan, and Malchi-shua, and Abinadab, and Eshbaal.
⁴⁰And the son of Jonathan was Merib-baal; and Merib-baal begat
Micah. ⁴¹And the sons of Micah; Pithon, and Melech, and Tahrea,
_and Ahaz_. ⁴²And Ahaz begat Jarah; and Jarah begat Alemeth,
and Azmaveth, and Zimri; and Zimri begat Moza: ⁴³and Moza begat
Binea; and Rephaiah his son, Eleasah his son, Azel his son:
⁴⁴and Azel had six sons, whose names are these; Azrikam, Bocheru,
and Ishmael, and Sheariah, and Obadiah, and Hanan: these were
the sons of Azel.

See notes on viii. 29 ff. The passage serves here as an introduction to the story of the death of Saul. Whether it is in its original setting here or in viii. 29 ff., or possibly is original in both chapters, there is not sufficient evidence to determine (see note on viii. 29).

CHAPTERS X.‒XXIX.
THE REIGN OF DAVID.

At this point the Chronicler begins his narrative of Israel’s history. It commences abruptly with an account of the defeat and death of Saul, which however is given not for its own interest, but to serve as a brief introduction to the reign of David (chapter xi. ff.). Why does the Chronicler choose to begin his narrative at this point, passing over in silence (a) the Mosaic period, (b) the stories of Judges and of 1 Samuel i.‒xxx.? As regards (a) his silence is due to the assumption that those for whom he writes are no less familiar than he is himself with the account of the Mosaic age as presented by the fully developed tradition of the Pentateuch. As for (b), his silence probably arises neither from the difficulty of retelling the narratives of Judges in accordance with his theory of the early history, nor yet from the fact that they were doubtless familiar to his readers; but, again, from a consideration of the central purpose of his work. His theme is the Divine guidance of Israel’s destiny, and, since that destiny had ultimately centred upon the fortunes of Jerusalem and the worship maintained through its Temple, all else in Israel’s history becomes of quite secondary importance. He begins therefore where (for Israel) Jerusalem and the Temple began――with David, who conquered the city and planned the Temple. The tales of the Judges, of Samuel, and of David’s early life and his magnanimity toward Saul (a tempting source for the exaltation of the character of the ideal king), all these are logically ignored, since they lie outside the scope of the Chronicler’s design.