Chapter III: Introduction: § 1: Characteristics of Ancient Historical Writings (1)

Until recent times the study of the historical records of Israel and of other nations of antiquity has suffered from insufficient recognition of the principles and procedure of ancient historians. It is obvious that a great contrast exists between any modern historical work and those books of the Old Testament which relate the fortunes of Israel; and unless there is a clear perception of the main facts to which this contrast is due, the nature and value of the Books of Chronicles cannot readily be understood and certainly will not be properly appreciated. It is desirable therefore to deal with this matter at the outset, before proceeding to consider the special characteristics of Chronicles.

(1) _Standpoint._ According to the modern point of view, a perfect history would seem to be a complete and impartial statement of events. This ideal is unattainable, for even the fullest account must fall far short of the richness of actual life. Moreover, it is imperative that the trivial be distinguished from the important, and the facts be presented according to their relative values. A historian is therefore necessary to arrange the material so that the events are seen in their proper relationship. Thereby, however, a subjective element is introduced into our histories. Life is so complex that two men considering the same facts may reach very different conclusions concerning them. We cannot wholly escape this danger, but we do claim that the historian shall consciously seek to present the truth and nothing but the truth. He must not deliberately suppress or distort facts to favour (say) the Protestant or the Roman Catholic view of the Reformation. A modern historian may be convinced that sin leads to disaster, but he must not therefore write that a certain wicked monarch perished dethroned and in misery, if he knows that he died peacefully in his royal bed. If he wishes to enforce the doctrine that “the wages of sin is death,” either he may turn to history and select incidents which support that view, or he may invent characters and weave them into a tale which points his moral, or he may discuss the belief generally; but he ought not to publish as serious history a work in which, irrespective of facts, every wicked king is punished or involves his land in ruin. We should count such a work an illegitimate use of historical material, unless the author gave some clear indication of its real nature. We draw a sharp distinction between history and fiction, and in the serious historian we demand fidelity to the truth as he sees it.

This modern standpoint is in reality the outcome of that more scientific habit of mind which insists above all things on accurate observation of phenomena and on the subordination of theory to fact. But the duty of scientific thinking has not so very long been recognised by the human mind, and in former days many things were legitimate and natural which would not be so now. The moment we make allowance for our mental environment, we can conceive that there might be other ideas than our own as to what constitutes the use and abuse of historical records. To us the facts are primary, and the lessons they seem to teach must be accepted, whether they suit our wishes or not. But an ancient writer was not dominated by that maxim. Supposing he desired to teach that “Virtue is rewarded,” he _might_ consider that an excellent way of enforcing his theory was not only to use the narratives of the past, but to mould and modify them as best suited his object. History might be made the tool of his conviction, and the tool be shaped to assist his purpose. If it is hard for us to realise that such a procedure was legitimate _for him_, that is simply due to the difficulty we have in being anything except the children of our own age.

The earliest historical records of Israel were not attempts to write a continuous history of the people, but popular tales and songs commemorating such deeds of the people or its heroes as had made a profound impression on the popular imagination. An excellent example is the famous Song of Deborah in Judges v. Records of this type were long transmitted orally, but eventually were gathered together into written collections, such as the Book of Jashar, referred to by the canonical writers (see Joshua x. 13, 2 Samuel i. 18). As national history lengthened out and State records accumulated in connection with palace and temple, the idea would finally arise of combining these with the popular memories so as to form a connected historical narrative. But the motive which prompted the formation of such accounts was not scientific interest nor even perhaps curiosity to ascertain the exact course of events, but the desire to interest, to instruct, and above all to edify contemporary thought and life. Broadly, we may distinguish two types of ancient historical writing; first, the _descriptive_ narrative in which events were recorded on account of their intense human interest, and, secondly, the _didactic_, where the older descriptive tales and any other available material were selected, related, and built into a unity in such fashion as might best serve to bring out the religious, moral, or political lessons which they seem to teach or which the writer was anxious to impress upon his generation. The books of Samuel‒Kings and of Chronicles both belong to the didactic type¹. Thus, they contain many stories (e.g. the _details_ of Jehu’s revolution in Kings) which teach no special lesson but are recorded for their intrinsic interest; and also much annalistic record of fact. But this material has been welded together by a writer or writers who were supremely interested in the religious condition of their people, who believed that the character and purpose of God were manifest in the vicissitudes of their national history, and who desired to make the ethical and spiritual import of that history clear to their fellow-men. Hence in their present form their works are not scientific records but rather what may be termed “history with a motive.” For instance, the space given to the tales about Elisha the prophet compared with the brief allusion to Omri King of Israel is entirely disproportionate to their respective values in the _political_ sphere. The books of Samuel and Kings are practical and powerful appeals to history in the interests of religious faith. The same is true of Chronicles, and to an even greater degree, because Chronicles belongs to a later period than Samuel‒Kings (see § 3), when the religious convictions of Israel were felt with extraordinary intensity, and could be expressed in accordance with certain precise theological beliefs.

¹ That _both_ Samuel‒Kings and Chronicles can be classed as
didactic does not imply that they do not differ greatly in
character: the former books are “prophetic” and national,
relating God’s dealings with the nation as a whole, whilst
Chronicles gives an essentially priestly and ecclesiastical
view of the history.

(2) _Method: the treatment of “sources.”_ It is of no less importance to realise something of the difference of method between ancient and modern historians, particularly as regards their treatment of “sources.”

For all that lies beyond his personal experience the historian is, of course, dependent on sources, documentary or otherwise. The modern writer recognises the duty of testing and verifying the accuracy of the sources he uses for his narrative, and in producing his own account of affairs he is expected, where desirable, to state the sources upon which he has relied. The ancient historian also made use of sources, but (1) he used them uncritically, with little or no anxiety concerning their accuracy, and (2) it was his custom simply to select from the available material any passages, long or short, even words or phrases, which served his purpose, and to incorporate these in his work, frequently without any indication of the borrowing. Only in certain instances was the source precisely referred to. Moreover (3) the utmost freedom was exercised in dealing with the passages thus chosen. Sometimes they were reproduced word for word; at other times they were partially or wholly transformed to suit the new context. This may seem an unwarrantable procedure to us, but one has only to examine the actual instances of these adaptations or transformations of unnamed sources to perceive that the ancient¹ writer has acted in perfect good faith, with no suspicion that the manipulation was in any way blameworthy. How indeed could it have been otherwise? The science of literary criticism was unknown, “notions of literary propriety and plagiarism had not been thought of, and writers who advanced no pretensions to originality for themselves were guilty of no imposture when they borrowed without acknowledgement from their predecessors” (Skinner, _Kings_, p. 7).

¹ Nor need one go back to antiquity for an instance. Most
instructive examples of composite narrative compiled
uncritically but quite innocently by mediaeval chroniclers
from earlier sources may be found in Chapman’s _Introduction
to the Pentateuch_ (in this series), pp. 260 ff. Compare
also an illustration from Arabic historical writings given
by A. A. Bevan in _Cambridge Biblical Essays_, pp. 12 ff.

For us there is both gain and loss in these methods of the ancient writers, (a) Loss――because the continual adaptation of old tradition has sometimes produced changes so great that it is difficult or even impossible to discover now what was the actual course of events. By the exercise of care and by the diligent application of the principles of literary research the loss thus occasioned can be greatly diminished, particularly where different accounts of the same period have survived――e.g. in the parallel history of Judah in Samuel‒Kings and in Chronicles. Not only do the two versions facilitate the task of recovering the actual history, but each version throws light upon the origin and nature of the other. (b) On the other hand, the practice of incorporating passages of older narratives in the text is a great gain. It is, of course, unfortunate that the writers did not more carefully indicate the various sources they happened to be using; but constantly――thanks to idiosyncrasies of style, language, and thought――we are able to analyse the composite whole into its component parts. From the study of the separate sources thus revealed we gain invaluable information which would have been lost to us had the later writer (or rather, compiler and editor) given his version of the history entirely in his own words.

(3) _The absence of the idea of Development._ One other feature of the ancient writers, at least of the chroniclers of Israel, is of singular interest, and deserves special attention: it might be described as a feature of their temperament or of their mental environment. The idea of _growth_ has become familiar to us, and we recognise that there has been a process of development in our religious and social institutions. We are content to trace the seeds of the present in the past. But the feeling of antiquity was apparently different. In Israel, at least, there was a tendency to suppose that the cherished system and organisations of the present had sprung into existence, as it were, _full-grown_ at some great moment of the past. For example, by the Chronicler’s time, the whole body of law and ritual embodied in the final form of the Pentateuch had come to be ascribed in its entirety to Moses, whereas historical and literary evidence demonstrates beyond all question that the system of Jewish worship and law was a gradual growth of which the stages can be traced with considerable clearness. Similarly, many features in the organisation of the Temple ministrants――the Priests, Levites, etc.――came into existence only in post-exilic days; but the whole system as it appeared in the Chronicler’s time was believed by him, and doubtless also by his contemporaries, to have originated with King David. Indeed, it is very probable that the ancients felt it so natural and so necessary to justify important customs and institutions by giving them the sanction of an ancient and honourable origin, that occasionally the very ideals of the present were represented as facts of the past. The converse of this tendency was also in force. As the present sought the support of the authority of the past, so the past could only continue to be deemed important provided it conformed to some extent with the beliefs and ideals of the present. Ideas change and expand. Thus it was quite impossible in the Chronicler’s time to represent the age of David and Solomon as great and glorious unless the moderate figures given in Kings were altered to correspond with the ideas of men accustomed to think of the mighty armies of the Persian monarchs or of Alexander the Great. As Kuenen says, “In ancient times, and specifically in Israel, the sense of historic continuity could only be preserved by the constant compliance on the part of the past with the requirements of the present, that is to say by the constant renovation and transformation of the past. This may be called the Law of religious historiography” (_The Modern Review_, vol. i. [1880], p. 705).

One consequence of the first importance follows from this fact. An ancient historical writing often records unconsciously far more than the history of the period it purports to describe. Since much in it which is ascribed to a past age in reality reflects the conditions of the present, it follows that the work _as a whole_ may be an invaluable commentary on the author’s own period. By taking into account this law of religious historiography, by studying the writer’s method of compilation, his use and manipulation of sources and the additions he has himself made to the story, we shall find in the completed book a mirror of the thoughts, the ideals, and the conditions of the age when it was produced.

Justification for these remarks can be drawn not only from the writings of the Old Testament but also from the study of ancient literature in general. Nowhere, however, are the principles and characteristics which we have outlined more clearly exemplified than in the books of Chronicles. They are the key to the comprehension of Chronicles; and, if they are borne in mind, what is generally considered a somewhat dull book of the Bible will be seen to be one of the most instructive pieces of ancient literature. At the same time, we shall be in a position to perceive and appreciate the religious enthusiasm which animated the Chronicler.

§ 2. RELATION TO EZRA AND NEHEMIAH

It is well known that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally one book; but further it is certain that Chronicles has been artificially separated from them, and that the three books, Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, were once a continuous work. The reasons upon which this conclusion is based are as follows:

(1) The ending of Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra are the same (2 Chronicles xxxvi. 22 f. = Ezra i. 1‒3a), i.e. after the separation was made between Chronicles and Ezra‒Nehemiah the opening verses of Ezra (recording the proclamation of Cyrus permitting the Jews to return) were retained, or perhaps one should say, were added by someone who was aware of the original continuity of Chronicles with Ezra‒Nehemiah and who was anxious that Chronicles should end in a hopeful strain (see note on 2 Chronicles xxxvi. 23). The desirability of securing a hopeful conclusion is much more obvious in the Hebrew than in the English Bible, for, whereas in the English order Ezra immediately follows Chronicles, in the Hebrew Canon Ezra and Nehemiah are made to precede Chronicles, and Chronicles is actually the _last_ book of the Hebrew Bible. (On the reason for this order in the Hebrew, and generally on the separation of Chronicles from Ezra‒Nehemiah, see § 9, _Position in the Canon_, ad fin.)

(2) The same general standpoint and the same special interests are found both in Chronicles and Ezra‒Nehemiah to a remarkable degree. In particular, attention may be called to the following points:

(a) The same fondness for lists and genealogies is shown in both
works; compare e.g. 1 Chronicles xii. with Ezra ii. _or_
Nehemiah iii.; and 2 Chronicles xxxi. 16‒19 with Nehemiah
vii. 63‒65.

(b) The same intense interest in religious festivals and
institutions; compare 1 Chronicles xv., xvi.; 2 Chronicles
v.‒vii., xxix., xxx., xxxv. 1‒19, with Ezra iii., vi. 16‒22;
Nehemiah viii.

(c) Three classes of Temple attendants, viz. Levites, singers,
and porters, which are barely mentioned in the rest of the
Old Testament, receive a great deal of notice both in
Chronicles and in Ezra‒Nehemiah.

(3) The same style and diction are found in both works (excepting of course in such sentences and passages as are transcribed from older sources). Characteristic phrases are the following:

(a) “Fathers’ houses”; compare 1 Chronicles vii. 2, note.

(b) “The house of God,” very frequently in Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah
in place of the usual “house of the LORD” (Jehovah). With
this compare the avoidance of the use of the name Jehovah
(Jahveh) in such places as 2 Chronicles xvii. 4 (compare
Authorized Version with Revised Version), xx. 12, 30; Ezra
viii. 18, 21.

(c) “genealogy” (“reckon by genealogy”); compare 1 Chronicles
v. 17, note; Ezra ii. 62.

(d) “to oversee”; 1 Chronicles xxiii. 4; 2 Chronicles ii. 2
[ii. 1 Hebrew]; Ezra iii. 8 (Revised Version “to have the
oversight”).

(e) “willingly offer”; 1 Chronicles xxix. 14; Ezra i. 6.

These are merely a few instances out of very many which might be given. This similarity of style and language is far more striking in the Hebrew (compare § 3, C, and for full particulars the long list in Curtis, _Chronicles_, pp. 27 ff.).

When fully stated, the evidence indicated under (2) and (3) above is of a convincing character, and the conclusion that Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah were at one time a single work should be unhesitatingly adopted.

§ 3. DATE AND AUTHORSHIP

(1) _Date and Unity._ The scope of our inquiry in this section requires to be defined with some care. In dealing with any work which is chiefly a compilation of older material, it is necessary clearly to distinguish between the dates of the various sources which can be recognised or surmised and the dates of the writer or writers who have effected the compilation. When we examine the structure of Chronicles its composite nature is at once evident. Many long and important passages have been taken, with or without adaptation, directly from the existing books of Scripture. The date of all such passages, of course, falls to be considered in the commentaries on Samuel or Kings or wherever their original setting may be. The remainder of Chronicles presents an intricate but interesting problem. It has been held that there are no sources involved in this remaining portion but that the whole is the free composition of the writer who quoted or adapted the passages from earlier books of Scripture referred to above. According to the view taken in this volume, sources other than these “canonical” books were utilised in the formation of Chronicles, although for reasons suggested in § 5 (q.v., pp. xxxvi f.) such sources are not easy to distinguish from the work of the compiler himself. The little which can be said regarding the origin and history of these supposed sources may conveniently be reserved for the section dealing with the _Sources_ (§ 5). The question, therefore, which is before us in this section is the date of the editorial process to which we owe the present form of Chronicles. Fortunately the answer is simplified by one important fact, namely the remarkable homogeneity of Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah. To such a degree are these books characterised by unity of style, vocabulary, standpoint and purpose (see below; also § 2 and § 6), that we may safely conclude they are essentially the product of one mind: they have reached _substantially_ their present form in the course of a single editorial process. Conceivably the work was achieved by a small body of Levites (see below under _Authorship_), contemporaries, sharing the same training and outlook; but it is much more reasonable to infer the activity of a single writer――the _Chronicler_. It is his date which we proceed to consider. The evidence may be grouped under three heads, of which the last two (B, C) are of chief importance.

(A) (1) In 1 Chronicles xxix. 7 a sum of money is reckoned in _darics_, a Persian coinage introduced by Darius I (521‒486 B.C.).

(2) In 1 Chronicles iii. 19b‒24 (see note _ad loc._) according to the Hebrew the line of David’s family is traced to the sixth generation after Zerubbabel (_circa_ 520 B.C.). Hence, reckoning a generation as about 20 to 30 years, this passage would indicate a date not earlier than 400 B.C. or 340 B.C. The Greek, Syriac, and Latin Versions, however, differ from the Hebrew by extending the line to the _eleventh_ generation after Zerubbabel. That would imply a date possibly as late as 200 B.C. and not earlier than about 300 B.C., but it is very doubtful whether we can here rely upon the text of these Versions, and obviously it was easy for a translator or scribe to carry the list on to his own date. This piece of evidence, therefore, for the later date cannot be pressed, although it is worthy of notice.

Since, as we have said (§ 2), Ezra‒Nehemiah formed originally one book with Chronicles, evidence for the date of Chronicles is also furnished by any indications of date which occur in Ezra‒Nehemiah.

(3) In Nehemiah xii. 22 we find the significant phrase “to the reign of Darius, the _Persian_.” Now as long as the Persian empire stood such a description would have no point when written by a Jewish writer. For two hundred years down to 332 B.C., when Syria and Phoenicia fell into the hands of Alexander the Great, the rulers of Judea were all “Persians.” But from 332 B.C. onward Greek monarchs were the rulers of Palestine, and nothing is more natural than that a Jewish chronicler writing under their rule should refer to a king of the older régime as “the Persian.”

(4) Further, in Nehemiah xii. 26, 47 the phrase “in the days of Nehemiah” occurs, implying that for the writer Nehemiah belonged to the past, but, as one cannot say how near or how distant a past, the point carries little weight.

(5) Again, in Nehemiah xii. 10, 11 and 22, 23, a list of high-priests is given, concluding with the name of Jaddua, whom the Chronicler evidently (and correctly, compare Josephus, _Antiquities of the Jews_ xi. 7, 8) knew to have been the high-priest about 332 B.C., at the end of the reign of Darius (Darius III, Codomannus), when the Persian Empire collapsed before the attack of Alexander the Great.

These details, indicative of the date of composition, are as numerous as we have any right to expect in a work of the nature of Chronicles, which deals with past history. Their evidential value can of course be criticised by supposing that the passages in question are late interpolations and have therefore no bearing on the date of the main body of the work. But no solid grounds are adduced for this objection, and the burden of proof lies upon the objector. The supposition is extremely improbable, and may be dismissed in view of the fact that (B) the general character, and (C) the linguistic peculiarities of Chronicles alike demand a date considerably later than the period of Ezra‒Nehemiah.

(B) The character of Chronicles has already been referred to, but in a different connection (§ 2, pp. xvi f.). Here the point to notice is that _throughout the entire work_ the whole system of law and ritual found in the Pentateuch is presupposed as existing in its final form. This system, which may conveniently be described as Priestly (P) in distinction from the earlier system to which the name Deuteronomic (D) is applied, and the still earlier standpoint represented by the Jahvistic and Elohistic writers (J and E), may have been of slow growth, and no doubt embodies features of law and ritual which are of relatively high antiquity. But there is overwhelming evidence to prove that, as an organised and completed _system_, it cannot be dated earlier than the period of Nehemiah (_circa_ 425 B.C.). Now in Chronicles not only is this final code in force; it has evidently been so long and so firmly established that the Chronicler did not know, or at least did not believe, that any other earlier system had once ruled the practice of Israel. He belonged to a period when the development of the Pentateuch was no more remembered, and when its origin――in all completeness――had come to be ascribed with absolute confidence to the remote past, in accordance with that religious instinct which we have described above on p. xiv. Manifestly, a considerable lapse of time after Nehemiah’s period must be allowed for that conviction to have become established.

Another consideration is found in the attitude of the Chronicler towards the kingdom of Israel. For the apostate Northern Kingdom the Chronicler has only contempt and hatred and displays no interest whatever in its fortunes, except that he takes pains occasionally to indicate the corruption of the North, thus emphasising by contrast the virtue of the Judeans. His absorption in the affairs of Jerusalem and his bitter antagonism to the North in all likelihood reflect the anger felt by the post-exilic Jews of Jerusalem against the Samaritans after the famous schism between the two communities. Indeed it is possible, § 6 (1), that his work was directly inspired by the necessity of combating the religious pretensions of the Samaritans with their Temple on Mt Gerizim, rivalling Jerusalem. The Samaritan schism is generally supposed to date from 432 B.C., but there are grounds for thinking that it was not so early, and _possibly_ the Temple on Mt Gerizim may have been built, not in 432, but in 332 B.C. If the later date be correct, we have strong evidence for dating Chronicles not earlier than the last half of the fourth century B.C.

(C) The late date of Chronicles is finally put beyond all doubt by the linguistic peculiarities of the book. Excluding, of course, the passages drawn from earlier Scriptures, the Hebrew of Chronicles is of such a character that it is impossible to assign anything but a late post-exilic date for its composition. In every aspect of language――grammar and syntax and vocabulary――the diction exhibits the unmistakable characteristics of late Hebrew. It lies beyond the scope of the present volume to give details of the Hebrew, and reference may be made to the edition of Chronicles by Curtis and Madsen (_International Critical Commentary_), pp. 27 ff., where a list of 136 such peculiarities is given.

The _style_ of Chronicles is disappointing. The Chronicler had some praiseworthy qualities as a narrator: he displays force and imagination in the treatment of the material, he knew how to add a graphic touch, and he was able to revise a story thoroughly while preserving its internal coherence (e.g. 1 Chronicles xxi.). But he had not the gift of choice language. In so late a work we could not hope to find the strength and purity which characterised Hebrew prose of the “golden age.” It must, however, be confessed that, judged even by the standard of its own age, the Hebrew of Chronicles is clumsy and displeasing in many ways.

* * * * *

From this cumulative evidence we infer that the Chronicler was certainly a post-exilic writer later than the period of Ezra‒Nehemiah and in all probability not earlier than about 300‒250 B.C. This is a valuable and definite conclusion, but it is important to observe that it does not fully answer the problem of the date of the _present form_ of Chronicles. It remains to ask whether the text as it has reached us (the Masoretic Hebrew) is precisely the text which left the Chronicler’s hands, and, if not, what changes have been introduced. It is safe to say that the Hebrew text has been almost unchanged since about 150 A.D., but between that date and the time of the Chronicler is a long and sometimes stormy period. The subject, though in many ways important, is too intricate to be discussed here at length: a few remarks must suffice. (1) Like all other books of the Old Testament, Chronicles has suffered from the usual accidents of scribal errors in the course of transmission; but the changes due to this cause, being unintentional, are as a rule unimportant and can often be detected and corrected (see § 10, _Text_). (2) More serious are alterations made by revisers or scribes who were anxious to bring the narrative of Chronicles into conformity with that of Samuel and Kings. In the last two chapters of 2 Chronicles the Hebrew text can be compared with an _old_ Greek Version (1 Esdras――see § 10, _Greek Versions_), and the comparison indicates that changes of text (see notes on 2 Chronicles xxxv. 8, 15) and a harmonisation of Chronicles with Kings (see note on 2 Chronicles xxxvi. 5; compare also verse 15) have occurred in that brief section.

Except in these two chapters the old Greek Version has unfortunately perished, and for all the rest of Chronicles comparison can only be made with a much later Greek Version, which is a translation of a Hebrew text almost identical with the present, Masoretic, form. Even so, differences are found, notably a substantial passage deleted from the Hebrew in 2 Chronicles xxxv. 19 (where see note). It is a legitimate conjecture that, if the _old_ Greek Version were extant throughout Chronicles, considerable variations between the earlier and the present text might be disclosed. (3) Finally, internal evidence suggests that a few passages are of a secondary character; i.e. interpolations by a writer later than the Chronicler: such perhaps are 1 Chronicles vi. 50‒53; viii. 29‒38; xxiv. 20‒31; 2 Chronicles xv. 16‒19 (see note verse 17); xx. 33 (see note xvii. 6); xxxi. 17‒19.

Interpolations on a large scale are not likely to have been made. Yet it must be borne in mind that Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah were once a continuous work, and study of Ezra‒Nehemiah shows that those writings have undergone a complex literary process, involving serious omissions and transpositions. This heightens the possibility that Chronicles also, before or after its separation from Ezra‒Nehemiah, was treated with freedom. Thus “the recurrence of 1 Chronicles ix., Nehemiah xi. [both giving a list of inhabitants of Jerusalem] in a single work hardly looks like an original feature; like the more remarkable repetition of Ezra ii., Nehemiah vii., the feature seems to point to the combination of sources which were primarily distinct” (Cook, _1 Esdras_, in Charles’ _Apocrypha_, p. 19, but see note on ix. 17). On the other hand the homogeneity of style and purpose in Chronicles tells strongly against the probability of large interpolations, and it is reasonable to believe that in the present text we have _substantially_ the work produced by the Chronicler.

(II) _Authorship._ Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah contain no hint whatsoever of the name of their author, and external evidence fails us equally. From the contents and tone of the work we can infer with comparative certainty that he belonged to the Levitical order, and in all probability was a member of one of the Levitical guilds of musicians and singers (see, e.g. 2 Chronicles xxxiv. 12, note). His character and conceptions can also be discerned from the nature of his work. That he was a man of strong intellect and vivid imagination is shown by his qualities as a narrator (see p. xxi) and by the consistency and power with which the whole work has been designed and carried through (see below, §§ 5, 6, 8). Beyond this it is futile to conjecture.

§ 4. CONTENTS

The books of Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah give a history of Israel and its ancestors from Adam down to the conclusion of Nehemiah’s activity on behalf of the post-exilic community in Jerusalem, _circa_ 432 B.C. Of this history the two books of Chronicles cover the period from Adam to the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.¹ Before giving a detailed analysis, it may be of advantage to call attention to certain outstanding features. Remark that (1) the traditions of the period from Adam to Saul’s death have been compressed into a series of genealogical lists which occupy chapters i.‒ix.; (2) the rest of the two books gives an account of the history of _Judah_ from the death of Saul down to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586, the fortunes of North Israel being ignored, except for some scornful allusions to its degeneracy in comparison with Judah and Jerusalem; (3) the keenest interest is displayed by the writer in all matters connected with the Levites, the Temple, and its worship, so that an extraordinary amount of space is allotted to those subjects――note especially 1 Chronicles vi., xxii.‒xxix.; 2 Chronicles iii.‒vii., xxix.‒xxxi., xxxiv. 8‒xxxv. 19.

¹ Actually Chronicles concludes with the first three verses of
Ezra i., which relate the famous edict of Cyrus, permitting
the Jews to return to Jerusalem: see § 2 (1).

The following Table gives a general survey of the contents of 1 and 2 Chronicles¹.

¹ The sign “=” in the Table means that the passage in
Chronicles is a transcription, with little or no change, of
the passage given in brackets; the sign “compare” is used
where the account in Chronicles differs considerably from or
has only a faint connection with that of the passage in
brackets.

(A) 1 Chronicles i.‒ix. INTRODUCTORY GENEALOGIES.

i. 1‒4 (compare Genesis v. 3‒32). Genealogy from Adam to the
sons of Noah.

5‒23 (= Genesis x. 2‒29). The descendants of Japheth, Ham,
and Shem.

24‒28 Genealogy from Shem to Ishmael.

29‒31 (= Genesis xxv. 12‒16). Ishmaelite descendants of
Abraham.

32, 33 (= Genesis xxv. 1‒4). Arabian descendants of Abraham.

34‒37 (compare Genesis xxxvi. 10‒14). Edomite descendants
of Abraham.

38‒42 (compare Genesis xxxvi. 20‒28). Genealogy of the
Horite inhabitants of Seir.

43‒51a (compare Genesis xxxvi. 31‒39). The early kings of
Edom.

51b‒54 (compare Genesis xxxvi. 40‒43). The “dukes” of Edom.

ii. 1, 2 (compare Genesis xxxv. 22b‒26). The sons of Israel.

3‒iv. 23 Genealogies of the tribe of Judah:

ii. 3‒17 Descent of the sons of Jesse.

18‒55 Caleb. Jerahmeel. Caleb.

iii. 1‒9 (= 2 Samuel iii. 2‒5; v. 14‒16). David’s sons.

10‒24 The Davidic Line before and after the
Captivity.

iv. 1‒23 Additional genealogies of Judah.

iv. 24‒v. 26 Genealogies of Simeon, Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh.

vi. 1‒81 The tribe of Levi:

1‒3 Genealogy from Levi to Eleazar.

4‒15 The line of the high-priests to the Captivity.

16‒30 The three clans of the Levites.

31‒47 The singers.

48‒53 Distinction between the sons of Aaron and the
rest of the Levites.

54‒81 The cities of the Levites.

vii. 1‒40 Genealogies of Issachar, Zebulun (see note on vii. 6),
Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, and Asher.

viii. 1‒40 Genealogies of Benjamin:

1‒28 Various Benjamite families.

29‒40 (compare ix. 35‒44). The genealogy of the house of
Saul.

ix. 1‒17 The heads of the families of Judah, Benjamin, and
Levi, which dwelt in Jerusalem.

18‒34 The duties of porters and Levites.

35‒44 (= viii. 29‒38). The genealogy of the house of Saul.

(B) x.‒xxix. DAVID.

x. 1‒14 (= 1 Samuel xxxi. 1‒13). The death of Saul at the
battle of Gilboa.

xi. 1‒9 (= 2 Samuel v. 1‒10). Coronation of David and capture
of Jebus.

10‒47 (compare 2 Samuel xxiii. 8‒39). David’s mighty men.

xii. 1‒40 David’s adherents who brought him to the kingdom.

xiii. 1‒14 (=2 Samuel vi. 1‒11). The removal of the Ark from
Kiriath-jearim. Death of Uzza.

xiv. 1‒7 (compare 2 Samuel v. 11‒16). David’s sons born in
Jerusalem.

8‒17 (= 2 Samuel v. 17‒25). Two Philistine attacks
repulsed.

xv. 1‒24. Preparations for bringing home the Ark.

25‒xvi. 6 (compare 2 Samuel vi. 12‒20). The Ark brought
into the city of David.

xvi. 7‒36 (= Psalms cv. 1‒15; xcvi. 1‒13; cvi. 1, 47, 48).
David’s psalm of praise.

37‒43 Arrangements for daily worship.

xvii. 1‒27 (= 2 Samuel vii. 1‒29). Permission to build a
Temple refused to David.

xviii. 1‒17 (= 2 Samuel viii. 1‒18). David’s foreign wars. His
officials.

xix. 1‒xx. 8 (= 2 Samuel x. 1‒19; xi. 1; xii. 26‒31; xxi.
18‒22). Wars with Ammon, Syria, and the
Philistines.

xxi. 1‒30 (= 2 Samuel xxiv. 1‒25). The census and the plague.

xxii. 1‒xxix. 20. David’s preparations for the building of
the Temple and for the establishment of its
services:

xxii. The choice of the Temple site. The charge to
Solomon.

xxiii. The organisation of the Levites.

xxiv. The divisions (“courses”) of the Priests.

xxv. The divisions of the singers.

xxvi. The divisions of the doorkeepers.

xxvii. Various officers of David.

xxviii. 1‒xxix. 20 David’s charge to Solomon and to all
Israel.

xxix. 21‒30 The Epilogue: The Great Rejoicing; the Anointing
of Solomon; Summary of David’s reign.

(C) 2 Chronicles i.‒ix. SOLOMON.

i. 1‒6 (compare 1 Kings iii. 4). Solomon’s sacrifice at Gibeon.

7‒13 (= 1 Kings iii. 5‒15). The Vision and the prayer for
wisdom.

14‒17 (= 1 Kings x. 26‒29). Chariots and horses.

ii. 1, 2, 17, 18 (compare 1 Kings v. 15, 16). Bearers of
burdens and hewers of wood and stone.

3‒16 (compare 1 Kings v. 2‒11). Negotiations with Huram
(Hiram) king of Tyre.

iii. 1‒v. 1 (compare 1 Kings vi. 1‒vii. 50) The building and
furnishing of the Temple.

v. 2‒14 (= 1 Kings viii. 1‒11). The bringing in of the Ark and
the descent of the cloud.

vi. 1‒11 (= 1 Kings viii. 12‒21). Solomon’s blessing.

12‒42 (= 1 Kings viii. 22‒50). Solomon’s prayer.

vii. 1‒3 The descent of the fire upon the sacrifices.

4‒10 (= 1 Kings viii. 62‒66). The final rejoicings.

11‒22 (= 1 Kings ix. 1‒9). The second Vision and the
acceptance of Solomon’s prayer.

viii. 1‒13, 17, 18 (compare 1 Kings ix. 10‒28). Various Acts
of Solomon.

14‒16 Organisation of the Priests and Levites in the
Temple.

ix. 1‒28 (= 1 Kings x. 1‒27). The Visit of the Queen of Sheba.
Solomon’s greatness.

29‒31 (= 1 Kings xi. 41‒43). The Epilogue.

(D) 2 Chronicles x.‒xxxvi. THE ACTS OF THE KINGS OF JUDAH.

x. 1‒xi. 4 (= 1 Kings xii. 1‒24). The Revolt of the Ten Tribes.

xi. 5‒xii. 16 (compare 1 Kings xiv. 21‒31). The Acts of
Rehoboam.

xiii. 1‒22 (compare 1 Kings xv. 1‒8). The Acts of Abijah
(Abijam).

xiv. 1‒xvi. 14 (compare 1 Kings xv. 9‒24). The Acts of Asa.

xvii. 1‒19 Jehoshaphat’s religious measures. His captains.

xviii. 1‒34 (= 1 Kings xxii. 1‒37). Jehoshaphat with Ahab at
Ramoth-Gilead.

xix. 1‒xx. 30 Jehoshaphat’s judges. His victory in the
wilderness of Tekoa.

xx. 31‒37 (= 1 Kings xxii. 41‒49). The rest of the Acts of
Jehoshaphat.

xxi. 1‒20 (= 1 Kings xxii. 50; compare 2 Kings viii. 17‒24).
Jehoram.

xxii. 1‒9 (= 2 Kings viii. 25‒29; compare ix. 27, 28). Ahaziah.

10‒xxiii. 21 (= 2 Kings xi. 1‒20). The rise and fall of
Athaliah.

xxiv. 1‒14 (= 2 Kings xii. 1‒16). Restoration of the Temple
under Joash.

15‒22 Apostasy of the princes. Assassination of the
prophet Zechariah.

23‒27 (compare 2 Kings xii. 17‒21). The Syrian War and
the end of Joash.

xxv. 1‒13 (compare 2 Kings xiv. 1‒7). Amaziah. The Edomite War.
The Ephraimite ravages.

14‒16 Apostasy of Amaziah.

17‒28 (= 2 Kings xiv. 8‒20). Capture of Jerusalem. Death
of Amaziah.

xxvi. 1‒23 (compare 2 Kings xv. 1‒7). Uzziah (Azariah).

xxvii. 1‒9 (compare 2 Kings xv. 32‒38). Jotham.

xxviii. 1‒27 (compare 2 Kings xvi. 1‒20). Ahaz.

xxix. 1‒xxxi. 21 Hezekiah. Cleansing of the Temple. The Great
Passover. Care for the priesthood.

xxxii. 1‒23 (compare 2 Kings xviii., xix.). The deliverance
from Sennacherib.

24‒33 (compare 2 Kings xx. 1‒21). Hezekiah’s sickness.
His death.

xxxiii. 1‒20 (compare 2 Kings xxi. 1‒18). Manasseh. His
captivity and repentance.

21‒25 (= 2 Kings xxi. 19‒26). Amon.

xxxiv. 1‒7 (compare 2 Kings xxii. 1, 2; xxiii. 4‒20). Josiah.
Removal of the emblems of idolatry.

8‒28 (= 2 Kings xxii. 3‒20). Repair of the Temple.
Discovery of the Book of the Law.

29‒33 (= 2 Kings xxiii. 1‒3). Renewal of the Covenant.

xxxv. 1‒19 (compare 2 Kings xxiii. 21‒23). Josiah’s Great
Passover.

20‒27 (compare 2 Kings xxiii. 28‒30a). The death of
Josiah.

xxxvi. 1‒4 (compare 2 Kings xxiii. 30b‒34). Jehoahaz.

5‒8 (compare 2 Kings xxiii. 36‒xxiv. 6). Jehoiakim.

9, 10 (compare 2 Kings xxiv. 8‒17). Jehoiachin.

11‒21 (compare 2 Kings xxiv. 18‒xxv. 21). Zedekiah. The
Captivity of Judah.

22, 23 (= Ezra i. 1‒3a). The decree of Cyrus.

It will be seen at a glance that large portions of earlier canonical Scripture have been reproduced in Chronicles exactly or very closely: viz.

Genesis x. 2‒29; xxv. 1‒4, 10‒16; xxxvi., _passim_.

1 Samuel xxxi.

2 Samuel v.‒viii.; x.; xxiii. 8‒xxiv. 25.

1 Kings iii. 4‒14; v.‒vii. (in part); viii.‒x.; xi. 41‒xii. 24; xiv. 21‒xv. 24 (in part); xxii. (in part).

2 Kings viii. 17‒29; xi., xii.; xiv. 1‒22; xv., xvi. (in part); xxi.‒xxiv. (in part).

Ezra i. 1‒3.

As the foregoing list shows, Chronicles by no means includes all the narrative of Samuel and Kings. In particular may be noted the omission of any account of the early life of David (1 Samuel _passim_), the _Court History_ of David (2 Samuel xi.‒xx.), the history of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings xvii.‒xxi.; 2 Kings i. 1‒viii. 15), and the affairs of the Northern Kingdom with a few exceptions.

On the other hand, Chronicles contains a great deal which is either independent of or not immediately dependent on earlier books of the Old Testament: note especially the opening nine chapters of genealogies, the last seven chapters of 1 Chronicles, and many passages, long and short, in 2 Chronicles x.‒xxxvi. The origin and significance of this new material will be discussed in the section on the _Sources_, § 5.

§ 5. THE SOURCES

From what has been said in § 1 regarding the nature of ancient historical writings it will be realised that a careful examination of the material used in the compilation of Chronicles is a necessary preliminary to the task of estimating the purpose and value of the work in its final form. Only when the extent of the sources has been determined can we say whether contributions made by the writer who combined those sources into the existing work are so great or so small that we ought to reckon him in the one case a narrator whose personality must be seriously considered, or in the other a mere copyist and compiler.

(1) In considering the material of Chronicles, it is convenient to begin with those passages which seem to be copied or adapted from earlier books of the Old Testament. That such passages are numerous, and constitute a very large amount of 1 and 2 Chronicles will be seen by a glance at the table of contents given in § 4. Occasionally the Chronicler reproduced the canonical text _verbatim_, but generally he introduced alterations, which were sometimes both numerous and important. The discrepancies thus produced between Chronicles and other parts of canonical Scripture presented a grave difficulty to the older commentators, and the theory was put forward that the Chronicler used, not the canonical books, but the still older sources from which the canonical books themselves were built up and to which they frequently refer. It was hoped thus to minimise the divergences by supposing that the Chronicler had copied somewhat different portions of these old sources, and had approached them from a different standpoint. Not only was this hypothesis in the highest degree improbable, but the reconciliation it was supposed to effect is now recognised to be for the most part untenable. The theory is finally discredited by the fact that these sources of the canonical books _always_ appear in Chronicles combined together in precisely the same manner in which they are found combined in the canonical books; i.e. they appear always ‘edited,’ and never in their original, independent, form. It may be definitely asserted therefore that for all the passages which are common to Chronicles and other canonical works the Chronicler was indebted solely to the text of the canonical books as it appeared in his time.

As for the divergences, real and apparent, between Chronicles and other canonical Scriptures, it is now recognised that, whilst they are properly a subject for historical investigation, they do not involve a religious problem. The old “religious” difficulty is answered by a deeper comprehension of the nature of Inspiration. The real inspiration of the Scriptures does not, as was once thought, rest upon points of historical accuracy: see the article _Inspiration_ by A. E. Garvie in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_¹¹, vol. xiv., especially pp. 647 _ad fin._, 648, with the references there given.

(2) More important and difficult is the problem of the source of the _new_ material in Chronicles. Nearly one-half of the two books of Chronicles is material otherwise unknown to us, and not to be regarded as mere ornamental amplification of the passages drawn from canonical sources. Rather it is precisely these new parts which give colour to the whole work, and there can be no doubt that the Chronicler must have dwelt with special fondness on just these passages. The question is, Can we discern or infer sources from which these independent chapters and paragraphs have been derived, or is the Chronicler himself their only source and origin?

In attempting to answer that question, our first task is to note and discuss a long list of works to which the Chronicler appeals, either as authorities for what he says or as sources where fuller information might (presumably) be expected. They are as follows:

A. _Those with specific prophetic titles._

[For the reigns of David and Solomon.]

(1) The history (literally _words_, or _acts_) of Samuel the seer
(1 Chronicles xxix. 29).

(2) The history of Nathan the prophet (1 Chronicles xxix. 29;
2 Chronicles ix. 29).

(3) The history of Gad the seer (1 Chronicles xxix. 29).

(4) The last acts of David (1 Chronicles xxiii. 27). [Perhaps the
same as (5).]

(5) The chronicles (literally _acts of the days_) of king David
(1 Chronicles xxvii. 24).

(6) The prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chronicles ix. 29).

(7) The visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chronicles ix. 29).

[For the kings of Judah (excepting Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah,
Amon, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah).]

(8) The histories of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer
(2 Chronicles xii. 15).

(9) The commentary (literally _Midrash_¹) of the prophet Iddo
(2 Chronicles xiii. 22).

(10) The history of Jehu the son of Hanani which is inserted in
the books of the kings of Israel (2 Chronicles xx. 34).

(11) A writing of Isaiah the prophet (2 Chronicles xxvi. 22).

(12) The vision of Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz in the books
of the kings of Judah and Israel (2 Chronicles xxxii. 34).

(13) ? The history of Hozai (literally _the seers_) (2 Chronicles
xxxiii. 19).

(14) ? A genealogical register compiled in the time of Jotham and
Jeroboam II (1 Chronicles v. 17).

(15) A collection of “lamentations” (2 Chronicles xxxv. 25).

B. _Those with general titles._

(1) A Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (cited for the reigns
of Asa, Amaziah, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; 2 Chronicles xvi. 11,
xxv. 26, xxviii. 26, xxxii. 32). Compare (12) above.

(2) A Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah (cited for Jotham,
Josiah, and Jehoiakim; 2 Chronicles xxvii. 7, xxxv. 27,
xxxvi. 8).

(3) A Book of the Kings of Israel (cited for genealogies,
1 Chronicles xix. 1; for the reign of Jehoshaphat, 2
Chronicles xx. 24; and for Manasseh, 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 18).

(4) A _Midrash_¹ of the Book of Kings (for the reign of Joash,
2 Chronicles xxiv. 27).

¹ The noun _Midrash_ is derived from a verb meaning to _search
out, explore_. The word occurs only in 2 Chronicles xiii. 22,
xxiv. 27 in the Old Testament but is very common as a
description of many works of later Jewish literature. A
Midrash may be defined as an imaginative adaptation of
an idea suggested by Scripture, especially a homiletic
exposition or an edifying religious story. In midrashic
writings “numbers are multiplied, all the details assume
huger and more exalted proportions, right is always richly
rewarded and wickedness signally punished, miracles are
common, and prophets and kings deliver majestic, spiritual
addresses, embodying the best doctrines of later Judaism”
(Kent, _Student’s O.T._ II. p. 20). Several of the
narratives in Chronicles partake of this character. For
later and more obvious examples, compare the stories of
Tobit and Susanna in the Apocrypha.

This great array of authorities dwindles to small proportions on inspection. Of the fifteen given under A, numbers 13, 14 are uncertain but of very small importance, whilst number 15 is also unknown: it is _not_ the canonical book of Lamentations (see the note on 2 Chronicles xxxv. 25). The rest, numbers 1‒12, almost certainly were not independent works, but simply sections of some comprehensive work (see especially numbers 10 and 12), it being the custom among the Jews to refer to the sections of a large work by means of distinctive titles――compare Romans xi. 2, “Know ye not what the Scripture saith _in Elijah_.” Thus some of these titles, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, may refer simply to passages in the canonical books of Samuel and Kings, numbers 11 and 12 to Isaiah xxxvi.‒xxxix. = 2 Kings xviii. 13‒xx. 19. But the others (and perhaps some also of those just mentioned) in all probability denote sections of a large history of a more or less midrashic character; and it is this work apparently which is meant by the titles given under B. To these we now turn. It is generally admitted that all four titles mentioned in B denote one and the same work, a comprehensive history of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. This work was _not_ our canonical books of Kings, for it is quoted as containing material not found in those books. Still less was it any of the sources referred to in Kings: there is not the faintest probability that any of the new material in Chronicles was derived directly from those very old sources. The question therefore is whether in this general work to which the Chronicler appeals he had a source _independent_ or _semi-independent_ of Kings. Opinion is divided. Some scholars think that it was essentially dependent on the canonical Kings, merely “a reconstructed history, embellished with marvellous tales of divine interposition and prophetic activity.” Others maintain that this midrashic history had its roots not only in canonical Kings but also in traditions partly or wholly independent of Kings. The latter opinion is here preferred, but the reasons for adopting it will be best seen if we first state and consider two sharply opposing views put forward by recent writers.