Chapter IV: Introduction: § 1: Characteristics of Ancient Historical Writings (2)

On the one side is Torrey (_Ezra Studies_, 1910) who argues that the Chronicler had no source at all other than the canonical books――all else was the product of his imaginative skill. He describes this supposed midrashic history of Judah and Israel as “a phantom source, of which the internal evidence is absolutely lacking, and the external evidence is limited to the Chronicler’s transparent parading of authorities.” The strength of Torrey’s contention lies in the fact that almost all the additional matter in Chronicles is written in one and the same distinctive style. That style has certain unmistakable peculiarities. Thus Driver in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ s.v. _Chronicles_, col. 772, writes, “It is not merely that the style of the Chronicler presents characteristically late linguistic novelties ... but it has also a number of special mannerisms.... So constant are [these marks] that there is hardly a single sentence, not excerpted from Samuel or Kings, in which they are not discernible.” On the other side we have to consider the attitude adopted in the commentaries of Benzinger (1901) and Kittel (1902), following up a suggestion made by Büchler in 1899. These scholars not only believe that non-canonical sources supplied much of the new material of Chronicles, but they have attempted to analyse that material minutely into various contributory elements. According to their view the Chronicler was essentially a compiler, following his sources closely and showing such little independence as he exercised chiefly in those verses and passages where the affairs and interests of the Levites are set forth. In the opinion of the present writer that is not a satisfactory account of the part played by the Chronicler. It does not make sufficient allowance for the singular homogeneity of style and purpose throughout the book. Torrey’s work is of value as a warning against the danger and difficulty of the analysis which Benzinger and Kittel have essayed. Frequently the points which are adduced as evidence for distinction of sources are too few or too subjective to provide adequate ground for the analysis――see the detailed examination of the Hebrew provided in the edition by Curtis. But, whilst it should be admitted that this uniformity of style carries great weight and must receive careful consideration, it does not, we think, follow that Torrey’s sweeping conclusion is correct, and that behind the non-canonical passages there is nothing save the imagination of the Chronicler. To begin with, if that were true, the Chronicler would be unparalleled amongst ancient historians. The originality of ancient chroniclers was shown in the manner in which they combined, modified, and embellished the nucleus given by tradition, but they did not invent _de novo_ to the extent required by this theory. Even if that be an over-statement, we can at least assert that they did not shut themselves up to their own imagination, if any traditions relating to their subject were current. On the contrary, they made use of all such available material, good or bad. And it is quite incredible that historical interest in Jerusalem regarding the old days of the Kingdom was confined to the compilation of Kings until suddenly the Chronicler produced this startlingly different account. There is very strong probability that the version given in Chronicles has a long chain of antecedents behind it. For consider, further, the general situation. The vicissitudes of time and fortune had caused great changes in the population of Jerusalem, but none that made absolutely impossible the continuance of traditions not represented or only partially represented by the narratives crystallised in Kings. Thus “we may safely assume that the overthrow of Edom (2 Chronicles xxv. 5‒13) and the leprosy of Uzziah (2 Chronicles xxvi. 16‒23) were once told more fully than in the brief verses of 2 Kings xiv. 7, xv. 5. We may surely allow links between the impression left upon tradition by these events and the stories that have been preserved by Chronicles” (S. A. Cook, in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, xii. 470). It is now generally recognised that the depopulation of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. was not nearly so complete as was once thought, and considerable continuity of tradition may have been maintained. Moreover, the influx of South Judean families in the exilic and post-exilic times must have meant an extension of popular tales concerning Judean affairs. It is therefore significant that the South Judean “strain” is a marked feature in the Chronicler’s history. Again, it is practically certain that Levitical predecessors of the Chronicler felt somewhat the same interest as he displays in the origins of their order and institutions. Are we to suppose that they made no attempts to gratify their curiosity, or to find historical grounds for their claims? Surely they would seize with interest on any and all current traditions, and would be constantly collating them with the well-known version in Kings, adding whatever they could to the total, and no doubt tending to retell the whole――at least the popular and edifying portions of the narrative――in terms more agreeable to the ideas and practices of their own time. We cannot suppose that the Chronicler was the first and only Levite who attempted to satisfy the obvious need (§ 6) for an orthodox ecclesiastical version of Judean history. Features of the genealogies, and in particular the Levitical _data_, suggest the existence of statistical records, if of nothing more. One further small but interesting point deserves mention. In 1 Chronicles iv. 9, vii. 23, xii. 18 there are sayings which cannot possibly originate with the Chronicler, for they are written in an archaic style utterly foreign to his manner of speech. Of these xii. 18 is poetical in form, while the other two are sentences of a type made familiar to us by early passages in Genesis. These verses, then, are certainly not the invention of the Chronicler, and, even if they are only isolated fragments, their existence is at least significant. In fine, the natural supposition is that in post-exilic Jerusalem there were various traditions which were drawn partly, but _not exclusively_, from the particular recension of history preserved in Kings, and which continued to develop in form and perhaps in content after the “Kings” recension was relatively fixed. Whether these developments of traditions, canonical _and_ otherwise, preserve any genuine history or not (§ 7), their existence in popular and priestly circles of the Chronicler’s time is, we think, almost certain; and it is quite certain that, if they were in existence, the Chronicler would utilise them. On this view, then, the sources of the Chronicler were:

(a) The canonical books.

(b) Variant forms of a few narratives in Kings; traditions of South Judean origin, recording movements of population and hostilities with southern tribes; popular midrashic tales; family statistics and genealogies, particularly of the Priests and Levites; records or traditions relating to the Temple, the fortifications of Jerusalem, and the repair of certain Judean towns――_some_ of this material being really independent of the traditions in Kings.

The problem raised by the stylistic uniformity of the new passages in Chronicles must now be considered. Probably the material indicated in (b) above may at times have crystallised into definite midrashic writings. (Thus, when the Chronicler speaks of the “History of the Kings of Judah and Israel,” we may believe that he refers to some such document, one that was either extant in his own age or was generally known to have existed.) Probably, however, it was also to a large extent in a fluid oral condition――matter of common knowledge and of common talk in Levitical circles. Certainly it is legitimate to think that with this material, written or oral or both, the Chronicler was intensely familiar; and that he could easily have related it _in his own words_. We may surmise that his procedure was somewhat as follows: He made the well-known narrative of Samuel‒Kings the basis of his version, altering its words as little as possible, yet, if necessary, exercising great freedom, so as to make it fully orthodox in accordance with the ecclesiastical standards of his time. Into this groundwork he wove with admirable skill new material of fact and narrative, drawn from the sources set forth in (b) above; and all this new material he selected, revised, and related in such a fashion as might best serve the very definite religious, moral, and ecclesiastical ends (§ 6) which his history was designed to meet. It passed, in fact, freely and effectively through the medium of his mind; so that it appears, if not wholly in his own words, at least coloured by his distinctive turns of speech. A second way in which we can explain the uniform style of the new matter in Chronicles and escape the conclusion that it has all been derived from the imagination of the Chronicler is to suppose that for some time past it had been transmitted through the talk or writing of Levites like-minded with the Chronicler and sharing the same ecclesiastical fashion of speech; that, in fact, much of Chronicles was built up by chroniclers before the Chronicler. There may be some truth in this argument; for, as was said above, the Chronicler was surely not the first Levite to feel the need for an “orthodox” history. The two explanations can be regarded as supplementary rather than alternative; but the present writer considers that stress should be laid chiefly upon the first.

This investigation of the structure of Chronicles yields the following general result. The position here taken is opposed to the theory that the whole of the new material was the product of the Chronicler’s imagination and literary skill. It leaves open the valuable possibility that the new material may preserve historical facts and traditions independent of those in Kings. On the other hand it admits that the Chronicler has had an important share in shaping the material and that (a) the consequent uniformity of style renders any attempt to analyse the new matter into its proximate sources precarious (observe, however, that the _immediate_ history of the sources behind the new material is not of such primary importance to us as is the fundamental conclusion that there _were_ such sources): and (b) whilst each part of the new matter is entitled to a thorough examination on its merits, great care must be exercised to determine exactly what part the Chronicler has played. Thus it is probable that some features of the narratives in Chronicles may _originate_ with the Chronicler: that is only what we should expect from a man able to plan and carry through a work so clearly intentioned and on such a large scale as Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah. He may have told his tale not only in his own words, but in his own way. We must be on our guard therefore to make allowance for the strength of his convictions, for his conception of the course of history and for the intentions with which he wrote. How far these considerations affect the historical value of his work will be dealt with below (§ 7).

This discussion of the sources may conclude by emphasising the remarkable skill of the composition. The passages taken direct from the earlier Scriptures have been so admirably combined with the new material that the component parts have been wrought into a real unity. It is evident we are dealing with an author of strong personality. What the aim and purpose of this writer were we may now proceed to consider.

§ 6. THE PURPOSE AND METHOD OF THE CHRONICLER

(1) In the time of the Chronicler the position of the orthodox party in Jerusalem, whose interests, civil and ecclesiastical, were bound up with the worship at the Temple on Mt Zion, was one of considerable difficulty. During the Greek period (from 330 B.C.) the mental horizon of the Jews in Jerusalem had expanded even more than under the Persian rule (538‒330 B.C.). They were now able to realise their isolation and political insignificance, whilst at the same time the communities of Jews scattered in all the leading countries of the ancient world were rapidly growing in size, influence, and in cosmopolitan outlook. Even the religious supremacy of Jerusalem was threatened. We now know that there was an important Jewish Temple at Elephantine in Egypt, which the Jewish community there was eager to maintain. But far more serious was the Samaritan schism and the Temple to Jehovah erected by them on Mt Gerizim. We can well imagine that a rival Temple on _Palestinian_ soil claiming, no doubt with some show of justice, that there were true Levitical families among its priests, that its ritual was correct and its observance of the Law every whit as sound as that in Jerusalem, was a matter of vital importance to the ecclesiastical orders at Jerusalem. Undoubtedly the feud was bitter in the Chronicler’s time; and there are strong grounds for holding that Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah were written with the immediate object of confuting the ecclesiastical pretensions of the Samaritans and of showing that in Jerusalem only ought men to worship. Certainly Chronicles is well adapted for that end. A virulent polemic would have been discounted as a party document. The Chronicler instead has skilfully retold the story of the past, so as to leave two main impressions. In the first place, by ignoring the affairs of the Northern Kingdom, save where he intimates that its people were religiously degenerate from the start (see 2 Chronicles xiii. 5‒12), that they were grievously decimated by a great disaster (2 Chronicles xiii. 13‒17), and that in general their attitude on the subject of mixed marriages was scandalously lax (see Ezra and Nehemiah), he has subtly but forcibly created the impression that the Samaritans were little better than “a heterogeneous mob of heathen.” Secondly and chiefly, his history was intended to show that Jerusalem, with its Temple on Mt Zion, is the _one_ place which Jehovah has chosen, and where He has set His Name. There alone was His worship properly and legitimately established, and there alone can it still be carried on. Jerusalem too, like Samaria, had suffered for its sins, but the disaster of the exile, the break in the succession, was repaired, he argues, through the return from Babylonia of that company of Israelites of pure descent whom Ezra led back: the genealogies which are so noticeable a feature of Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah are given as irrefutable proof that the Jerusalem community of the Chronicler’s day――Levites and laymen――were the true and only descendants of the nation of old. It followed that by them alone could the worship of Jehovah be lawfully conducted.

It seems very probable that the Chronicler’s work was directed specifically against the Samaritans. But in any case it is undoubtedly true that the essential purpose of the book was to vindicate the religious supremacy of Jerusalem, and to exalt the honour and the privileges of its priesthood and its Temple.

(2) In seeking to achieve this aim, the Chronicler inevitably dwelt upon those aspects of life and thought in which he specially believed. Thus we may distinguish various features of his work which subserve the main purpose:

(a) He was anxious, for instance, to uphold the _political_ supremacy of Jerusalem, no easy matter in his time. To Jews of the Greek period, fully aware of the pomp and power of heathen states, the achievements of even such national heroes as David or Solomon probably seemed pale and insignificant, as they are related in Samuel or Kings. In order to create a due sense of their importance, and to mitigate the depressing effects of Jerusalem’s present impotence, the Chronicler retold the glories of the past in terms commensurate with the notions of the present. To this end he idealised the great men of Israel. Thus the life of David is related by him as a career of almost unbroken success and of consistent piety. Thus also the sacrifices offered by Solomon at the dedication of the Temple are said to have been on a scale that might well have astonished Alexander the Great.

(b) Chiefly, however, the Chronicler was concerned with the _religious_ pre-eminence of Jerusalem. He delights therefore in magnifying to the full the glories of the Temple, its ritual and its officers. It is quite clear that his interest in this theme is far wider than any immediate polemical aim, and the subject deserves careful attention. When he describes the Temple of Solomon in terms of surpassing splendour, he is not merely seeking to cast down the pride of Samaritan rivals, he is also gratifying the longings of his own heart――how poor in comparison the outward form of the Temple he himself served so faithfully! Perhaps also he hoped thereby to excite his own love for its well-being among the less ardent of his brethren. More important was the question of _ritual and the Law_. We have already said (p. xx) that the Chronicler lived at a time when the Pentateuch had for a long while existed in its final form, when the ritual and Law of Israel were regulated in accordance with its fully elaborated precepts; the whole complex system being supposed to have been imparted to Israel by Moses. Now, when the Chronicler and others like him turned to the historical records of their people, the books of Samuel and Kings, they found many things which must have sorely puzzled them. For those records constantly relate events in ways which run counter to the provisions of the completed Pentateuch, sometimes ignoring, sometimes contradicting and breaking, its laws and practices. It is utterly unlikely that he and his fellows were aware that those books reflect the customs of an earlier period; so that in altering their narrative (as he does) he was not conscious of falsifying history. Even if he was, we must not judge his conduct by the opinions of our own time, but remember that “he lived in an age when certain accepted theories were regarded as more authentic than recorded facts” (Kent, _Student’s O.T._ vol. ii. 23). It is fair, however, to believe that in the inconsistencies of the older histories with the observances of his own day he saw only an astonishing ignorance or carelessness in matters of the Law on the part of the older writers――a state of affairs which called loudly for correction. For the good name of David and Solomon, for the honour of the pious Kings of Judah, as well as for the edification of his contemporaries (and, maybe, for the confusion of the Samaritans), such flagrant blemishes had to be removed. And in Chronicles he has produced _a thorough revision of the history of Judah in accordance with the principles and provisions of the completed Pentateuch_. Throughout the entire work this aim is consistently pursued. It must be therefore considered a main feature of the Chronicler’s purpose. The alterations of the text of Samuel‒Kings which he has made on this account will be so frequently pointed out in the notes that here one simple example will suffice. In 2 Samuel viii. 18 it is said, “And the sons of David were _priests_.” Since in the Chronicler’s time it was unthinkable that any could be priests save members of Levitical families, this statement was corrected to read, “And the sons of David were _chief about the king_” (1 Chronicles xviii. 17). Finally, in the officials of the Temple――Priests and Levites――the Chronicler manifests the deepest interest. Throughout his narrative he is vigilant to exalt the honour and privileges of those classes. In particular, he brings the guilds of Levitical singers into prominence so frequently that it is generally supposed he was himself a member of that order of Levites.

These remarks on the principal features of the book indicate in general the purpose and method of the Chronicler. Yet in a sense they do so externally, and behind all else, as the animating force, there lies the Chronicler’s religious faith, his zeal for God. _That_ truly is his ultimate motive; but it will be convenient to reserve what may be said concerning it until a later stage (§ 8).

§ 7. THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF CHRONICLES

Until recent times the burning question in the exposition of Chronicles has been the problem of reconciling its statements with those in Samuel‒Kings, finding explanations for the inconsistencies, and combining the additional matter given in Chronicles so as to form one harmonious narrative. So baffling was the task that even the Talmudists, masters in the arts of subtle exegesis, doubted the accuracy of Chronicles, and were inclined to treat it, not as an authority for the history, but as a book for homiletic interpretation (see references in the _Jewish Encyclopedia_ iv. 60). As soon as the character and purpose of the book, the circumstances and opinions of the writer, are understood, the demand for harmonising the variant accounts at all costs is seen to be mistaken, and the exposition of Chronicles is thereby freed from a burden by which it has been sorely hampered. The question of the historical value of its narratives remains one of great importance, but on literary and scientific, not on religious, grounds (compare p. xxx).

It will make for clearness if we approach the subject by considering first (A) the direct historical value of Chronicles, i.e. its worth as a history of Judah; and secondly (B) its indirect historical value as a work of the period to which we have assigned its composition, 300‒250 B.C. Under (A) our discussion may conveniently be divided into a consideration of: (I) those parts which reproduce or are apparently based on Samuel‒Kings; (II) the material wholly or apparently independent of canonical Scripture.

A.

DIRECT VALUE.

(I) If the Chronicler’s version of the history was to gain acceptance at all, it was necessary to make the older well-known histories the basis of his work. And indeed he himself no doubt conceived his version not as contradictory of the older narratives but only as a more careful account of the history of Judah, paying adequate attention to the religious affairs in which he was specially interested. Hence, wherever the text of Samuel and Kings was suitable for his purpose he reproduced it exactly¹: an example is 2 Chronicles xviii. 3‒34 = 1 Kings xviii. 4‒35. The historical value of passages which are merely transcriptions must be discussed not here but in their original setting: obviously their value is that which they possess there――neither more nor less. We proceed therefore to consider the _changes_ introduced by the Chronicler in using canonical sources. They are of various kinds:

¹ It must not be assumed that where the text of Chronicles
and Samuel‒Kings now coincides, it has done so always. That
conclusion is only generally true. Sometimes, it seems, the
_original_ text of Chronicles was altered to conform more
closely with Kings, and _vice versa_ the present text of
Kings is sometimes the result of assimilation to Chronicles
Unfortunately the evidence of the extant Greek versions
(§ 10) is quite insufficient to tell us how far the present
text of Chronicles has been modified by this assimilating
tendency, except in the last two chapters of 2 Chronicles
where the evidence of the Greek is peculiarly full. It is
clear, however, that some by no means unimportant changes
have taken place in the course of transmission: see § 10,
and the remarks on p. xxii.

(i) A great number of _minor_ alterations have been made, conforming the older material to the Chronicler’s point of view. A few instances may be given: 2 Samuel v. 21, “And [the Philistines] left their images there, and David and his men _took them away_” = 1 Chronicles xiv. 12, “And [the Philistines] left their gods there, and David gave commandment, and they were _burned with fire_.” Again, 2 Samuel xxiv. 1, “And the anger of _the Lord_ was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel” = 1 Chronicles xxi. 1, “And _Satan_ stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.” Again, 1 Kings ix. 12, “The cities which Solomon had given him (Huram)” = 2 Chronicles viii. 2, “The cities which Huram had given to Solomon.” Compare further 2 Samuel viii. 18 = 1 Chronicles xviii. 17 (quoted above, p. xli f.); 2 Samuel vi. 12 = 1 Chronicles xiii. 13; 2 Samuel xxiv. 24 = 1 Chronicles xxi. 25.

(ii) In some instances the alterations are so many or of so radical a nature that the whole tenour of the passage has been transformed――e.g. the conspiracy against Athaliah which resulted in the coronation of the youthful king Joash (2 Kings xi.) is rewritten (2 Chronicles xxiii.) to agree with the usages of the Temple in the Chronicler’s time. Similarly in the passage which follows (2 Chronicles xxiv. 4‒14), which is certainly based on 2 Kings xii. 4‒16, only some 30 words of the original have been kept, so freely has it been revised. Again, the account of the destruction of Jehoshaphat’s fleet (1 Kings xxii. 48 f.) is remarkably altered in 2 Chronicles xx. 35‒37. Compare further 1 Chronicles xv. 25‒28 = 2 Samuel vi. 12‒15; 2 Chronicles xxii. 7‒9 = 2 Kings ix. 27, 28; 2 Chronicles xxxii. 1‒23 = 2 Kings xviii. 13‒xix. 37 (a free abridgment).

(iii) Another noteworthy feature in the Chronicler’s treatment of the canonical sources is his _omissions_. These call for mention here because they are not only significant of his feelings and principles, but they also have an immense effect on the impression conveyed by his narrative as compared with that of his source. Not a word, for instance, is said that would detract from the picture of David as the man after God’s heart and the ideal monarch of Israel. The perils of his youth, Saul’s enmity and the long struggle against Ishbosheth are omitted¹. His murder of Uriah and the disastrous rebellion of Absalom are ignored; but the result is a David very different from the great yet sometimes erring monarch depicted in Samuel (see the head-note to 1 Chronicles xxviii.). Another significant omission is 2 Kings xviii. 14‒16, Hezekiah’s payment of tribute to Babylonia, a tradition which doubtless seemed to the Chronicler a sign of weakness and lack of faith incredible in a king so pious and successful. Above all, we notice the omission of the affairs of the Northern Kingdom, except for a few derogatory notices. The consequence is that if Chronicles stood _alone_, our conception of the relative importance of Judah as compared with Israel would be very far removed from the actual facts. It is a simple matter to see how imperative it is that the impression given by Chronicles should here be corrected by the records in Kings, and the student will find it instructive to consider the point with some care.

¹ Such omissions are very skilfully managed by the Chronicler.
Even so, they generally entail some abrupt transition or
obscurity, as in the present instance for which see the
note on 1 Chronicles xi. 1. Here the cause of the obscurity
can be shown by direct comparison of the earlier history
in Samuel. Mark how usefully Chronicles thus demonstrates
the _legitimacy_ of the argument that similar difficulties
elsewhere in the Old Testament are perhaps due to a similar
cause, although the earlier source may not be extant to
prove that the conjecture is correct.

The conclusions to be drawn from the above are clear. First, in passages of the type instanced in (ii) above, where the differences between Kings and Chronicles are considerable and not confined to changes made on transparently religious grounds, the possibility that we have to do with a variant form of the tradition in Kings should be carefully considered. If there be any such distinct traditions, even though they are few or in a late stage of development, they are of high value, for they _may_ be as worthy of consideration as the form in Kings. Moreover a slight variation in a tradition may occasionally suffice to indicate the existence of a different standpoint towards an important topic or period in the history. But in the majority of _all_ cases included under this heading (I) it appears that the changes in the narratives were arbitrarily made in consequence of the standpoint, beliefs, and purpose (§§ 1 and 6) of the Chronicler, and they can make no claim to rest on historical facts. For the detailed arguments upon which this general conclusion is based, the reader is referred to the notes on the text.

(II) The _additional_ matter of Chronicles includes a variety of subjects. These may be roughly but conveniently summarised under the following headings――(1) _genealogical lists_ (1 Chronicles ii.‒ix., xxiii.‒xxvii., etc.); (2) _topographical and other archaeological notices_ (e.g. 1 Chronicles xi. 41‒47; 2 Chronicles xvii. 7‒10, xix. 4‒11, xxvi. 6, 49, xxxii. 30, xxxiii. 14, and notably the organisation of the Levites, 1 Chronicles xxiii., xxiv., and details regarding the building of Solomon’s Temple, e.g. 2 Chronicles ii.‒iv., _passim_); (3) _letters and speeches_ (1 Chronicles xvi. 8‒36, xxii. 6‒19, xxviii. 2‒10, xxix. 1‒20; 2 Chronicles xv. 1‒7, xvi. 7‒10, xxi. 12‒15); (4) _national events, especially religious affairs and wars_ (e.g. 1 Chronicles iv. 34‒43, v. 6, xxiii. ff.; 2 Chronicles xvii. 7‒10, xix. 4‒11, xxix. 3‒xxx. 27), such topics being sometimes related in the style of (5) _Midrashim_――i.e. edifying tales describing marvellous deliverances from foes and splendid religious ceremonies (2 Chronicles xiii. 3‒20, xiv. 9‒15, xxx. 13‒27, and especially xx. 1‒30¹). If, as Torrey contends, the whole of this is simply the product of the Chronicler’s imagination working upon the canonical sources only and freely interpreting events in accordance with his own convictions, then, we must frankly admit, its historical value as a record of the past it purports to describe is _nil_. If, however, according to the view taken in this volume (see § 5), much of this material is drawn from a body of tradition, oral and written, current in the Jerusalem of the Chronicler’s day, and not represented in canonical writings, the question of historical value is still open. Our task, then, is to consider whether among the extra-canonical traditions some genuine historical facts may have been preserved. The problem is not easy, and, as yet, it does not admit of so exact and definite a reply as we should like to give. Obviously the answer requires a thorough consideration of each _item_ of the new material, a task which would far exceed the scope of this introduction. There are, however, some general observations which throw light upon the problem. These we shall give here, reserving the discussion of individual passages for the notes. Taking the subjects enumerated above in order, we have:

¹ The subjects thus classified are not, of course, mutually
exclusive――thus a letter or speech and statements of alleged
historical events will frequently be a part of the contents
of some midrashic passage.

(1) The new _genealogical lists_, which are so prominent a feature of Chronicles. Some of these lists are certainly not trustworthy records of pre-exilic times¹. But others, e.g. parts of the Calebite and Levitical genealogies, probably embody facts concerning the kinships and distribution of various South Judean families in pre-exilic and exilic times, and furnish valuable evidence of a northward movement (see S. A. Cook, _1 Esdras_, p. 12 in Charles’s _Apocrypha_, or his articles on _Caleb_, _Judah_, _Levites_ in _Encyclopedia Britannica_¹¹). It is certain that in post-exilic Jerusalem a considerable part of the population were descendants of these south Judean clans. Surely it would be surprising if no valid traditions of their relationships, their movements and fortunes, had been preserved amongst them. There is therefore good reason for holding that some historical information (e.g. 1 Chronicles iv. 34‒43) may be found in these lists, and it is possible that a close study of certain of the genealogies will yield most valuable light on some of the main questions of Old Testament history and literature. Unfortunately the study of the intricate problems involved is not yet sufficiently advanced to permit conclusions which meet with general acceptance.

¹ On the other hand they may have historical value as
regards the families of Judah and Jerusalem in or about
the Chronicler’s own generation――a point, however, which
properly falls to be discussed under B below.

(2) Much of the _topographical_ and _archaeological_ information scattered here and there in the books of Chronicles does not inspire confidence, but part may rest on old tradition; compare the headnote to 1 Chronicles xii. 1‒22. Many of the references in chapters i.‒ix. (e.g. vii. 24, viii. 12, etc.) to Judean townships, whether explicitly mentioned (e.g. 1 Chronicles vi. 54 ff.), or lightly disguised in the genealogical tables (e.g. 1 Chronicles ii. 18 ff., 50 ff.), are valuable not only for information regarding the relationship of Jewish families and movements of southern peoples, Edomites and Arabians (see (1) above, and the note on 1 Chronicles ii. 42), but also as evidence of the extent (small indeed!) of the territory occupied by the post-exilic Jewish community (compare Hölscher, _Palästina_, pp. 18‒23, 26‒31). It is further plausibly suggested that notices of certain tribes of the Northern Kingdom (e.g. Ephraim and Manasseh) may be regarded as indications of the extension of Judaism in Samaria and Galilee about the Chronicler’s period (see note on 2 Chronicles xv. 9). The Chronicler was singularly interested in building operations (see, e.g. 2 Chronicles xxvi. 9, xxxii. 30, xxxiii. 14) and some of his references to the building of fortified townships in Judea (2 Chronicles xi. 5 ff., xiv. 6, xvi. 1‒6, xvii. 12) and to the origin of buildings and gates in Jerusalem may be correct (see 2 Chronicles xxvi. 5‒10, note).

(3) As regards the _letters_ and _speeches_ which are ascribed by the Chronicler to various kings and prophets――e.g. David, Elijah, Azariah, etc.――these cannot be deemed authentic. For example, the great song of praise attributed to David in 1 Chronicles xvi. 7 ff. is wholly composed of quotations from Psalms of late date. Such speeches or letters are examples of a device constantly and legitimately employed by _ancient_ historians as a method of imparting vividness and spirit to their narrative. The letters and speeches represent simply what ought in the historian’s opinion to have been written or spoken. The Greek historian, Thucydides, carefully states the practice: “I have,” he writes, “put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them....” (Thucydides i. 22)¹.

¹ The practice is not peculiar to Chronicles, and these
remarks are generally true of the correspondence between
Solomon and Hiram and the long prayer of Solomon, found
in 1 Kings v. 2‒9, viii. 22‒50, and transcribed (with some
expansions) in 2 Chronicles ii. 3‒16, vi. 12‒42.

(4) _National events_, such as _religious ceremonies_ (e.g. Hezekiah’s Passover, 2 Chronicles xxix.‒xxxi.) and _wars_ (e.g. 2 Chronicles xx. 1‒30) constitute as a rule the subject-matter of (5) the pious _midrashic passages_; so that (4) and (5) may conveniently be treated together. _Midrash_ is not serious history, and very probably was not intended to be regarded as such even by its author. It is earnest moral and religious teaching presented in a quasi-historical dress. In all these passages the _form_ of the tale is unhistorical, and all midrashic features, such as the incredibly and often impossibly large numbers given in Chronicles, must without hesitation be set aside; but it does not follow that the tale has no historical foundation whatever, that the events around which it was written were originally unreliable. In an ancient writing mythical features do not afford a proper ground for rejecting a tale as historically worthless――a fact which requires to be emphasised. An interesting example is found in the extraordinary legends which attached themselves to the life of Alexander the Great and rapidly spread throughout Europe and Asia (see _Encyclopedia Britannica_¹¹ vol. i. pp. 550 f.).

Perhaps the most striking instance in Chronicles is the amazing and bloodless victory vouchsafed to Jehoshaphat over certain Bedouin tribes who invaded Judah from the desert by the southern end of the Dead Sea (2 Chronicles xx. 1‒30, where see notes). As told in Chronicles, the story is a _Midrash_, preaching the duty of trust in God and of obedience to His will at all hazards; but it is evident that the moral and religious form of the story has been built on and around a tradition of a desert raid on Judah. Now this nucleus of the tale may easily rest on historical fact. Fierce but undisciplined invaders, advancing from the desert through the difficult country of south Judah, a land of cliffs ravines and caves, might be sorely harassed by the guerilla attacks of the shepherd population of that region, and finally broken up by the outbreak of internal dissensions, before the main Judean army from Jerusalem had arrived to oppose their advance in force. Such an event would quickly fade from the military recollections of Jerusalem, but might be long perpetuated as a _local_ tradition among the shepherd class of the district where the victory was won. Thus we should have, on the one hand, a reason for its non-appearance in the earlier _strata_ of memories embodied in Kings. On the other hand, when the South Judean families had moved northward to Jerusalem in the exilic and post-exilic days, the story would gain currency, and one can easily see how suitable it was for development into just such a religious narrative as we find in Chronicles. The raid, then, is probably a genuine tradition, but, even so, a word of caution is required. It is necessary still to consider the question whether the story is correctly associated with the time of Jehoshaphat. Perhaps, yes; but _possibly_ several such raids took place, and the memories of them may have been confused and combined into one; or, again, the names of the original foes may have been changed into those of more recent opponents. Other important passages of this type are discussed in the notes on 2 Chronicles xiii. 3‒20, xiv. 9‒15, xxxiii. 11‒13.

One point calls for special mention. In the later chapters of 2 Chronicles the Chronicler’s account of the history, particularly as regards the relations of the Judean kingdom with the Edomites and Arabians to the south, is characterised by a freshness and independence which suggests that he was here relying on definite and valuable traditions (see notes pp. 257 f., 262, 280 f., 286 f., 292).

These results do not provide the complete material for an estimate of the historical value of Chronicles. To them must first be added the conclusions noted below, under B.

B.

INDIRECT VALUE.

Although the Chronicler says not one word directly of his own times, indirectly his work gives us much useful information concerning that obscure period. In very many ways Chronicles is a mirror reflecting the thoughts, hopes, and circumstances of the orthodox community in Jerusalem, _circa_ 300‒250 B.C. Indirect and unconscious though the evidence may be, it is still precious, for our knowledge of the period is so slight that all fragments of information are most welcome.

Some of the genealogical lists yield information regarding the post-exilic population of Judah and Jerusalem. Certain references (see p. xlviii) perhaps imply the extension of Judaism in Palestine. From the descriptions of the Temple and its organisation, facts can be gleaned regarding the Temple of the Chronicler’s own age. Thus in 1 Chronicles xxiii ff. where the Chronicler ascribes to David (unhistorically, see notes pp. 51 f., 136, 145) the origination of the Levitical arrangements in the Temple, he gives an elaborate description of their organisation; and therein we can see a picture of the complex system and duties of the Priests and the Levites (with the subordinate classes of doorkeepers and singers) as these were finally determined in the late post-exilic Temple. Some interesting inferences can be drawn from Chronicles regarding the instruction of the people in matters of religion. When in 2 Chronicles xvii. 7‒9 arrangements for teaching the Law throughout Judah are said to have been instituted by Jehoshaphat, we may be sure that some such system was in vogue in the Chronicler’s day, or, at the very least, that the Chronicler and his fellow-Levites were anxious to see it fully carried out. Perhaps schools for instructing the people had already been established in Jerusalem, and it was desired to extend them throughout the countryside as well. Significant in the same connection is the remark ascribed to Azariah the prophet (2 Chronicles xv. 3): “Now for long seasons Israel hath been without the true God and _without a teaching priest_ and without law” (compare 2 Chronicles xxxv. 3). Similarly from 2 Chronicles xix. 4‒11 we may infer the existence of, or the desire to establish, a careful system of courts of justice under the control of the Levitical order. Again, Chronicles contributes to our knowledge of the evolution of public worship. The subject is so obscure, the details so unknown, that we may be grateful for anything which helps us to discern even broad stages in the development. Undoubtedly those flagrant abuses of worship which called forth the denunciations of Isaiah and Jeremiah had passed away. One gathers that public worship in the Temple had become an affair of truly religious significance. The prayer of Solomon is repeated from Kings, but in addition the Chronicler ascribes similar utterances of praise, supplication, and thanksgiving to David and Hezekiah, and the good kings (especially Hezekiah and Josiah) are represented as zealously active in ordering and arranging for great services of worship which the people were to attend. All this, of course, is related of the past, but from it we may infer facts of the Chroniclers present. We infer, then, a community accustomed to gather constantly at the Temple for the worship of their God. The main elements of public worship can be traced. There was, of course, the ancient ritual of animal sacrifice, hallowed for the Jews by its vast antiquity, and grown the more impressive in proportion as the literalism of the past was forgotten and men felt more vividly that the offering was symbolic of things of the spirit――of the mystery of life, of forgiveness, and of recognition that all things are the gift of God. Undoubtedly there was public prayer. It is hardly possible to read the prayers of the great kings in Chronicles and not feel that they echo a liturgy of prayer――for the individual and for the nation. There was a great and impressive service of song and of music, compare 2 Chronicles v. 12, 13: _that_ is writ large indeed on the pages of Chronicles; and 1 Chronicles xvi. 8 ff. is enough to tell us that the Psalter was the book of praise. We have a sufficient hint, too, that to the songs at least, if not to the prayers also, the people were expected to respond――“And all the people said, Amen, and praised the Lord” (2 Chronicles xvi. 36). Probably arrangements were in vogue for regular reading of the Law, although Chronicles alone would hardly suffice to establish the point (2 Chronicles xxxiv. 31 is insufficient evidence). Even if it be thought that this picture represents rather the ideals of the Levites than the actual attainments of the community, it is still important that such a standard of worship was conceived by the priests and set before the people. One recalls the words of the great prophet of exilic or post-exilic times who wrote: “for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples” (Isaiah lvi. 7). His was a vision of the Temple as the centre of the whole world’s worship. To the Chronicler it had at least become a true “house of prayer” for Israel. Other details might be mentioned, but these will suffice to indicate the light which Chronicles throws upon the _conditions_ of the post-exilic community.

Much more important, however, is the insight we gain into the methods and principles, the ideals and the ideas which prevailed in Temple circles in Jerusalem during the third century B.C. Chronicles, like all distinctive books, is necessarily eloquent of its author’s mind and character. Now the Chronicler was a Levite of the Levites, and no doubt typical of his class at this period. But we know that this period was of the highest importance in the formation of the Old Testament, and it was precisely at the hands of the orthodox Levitical circles that many books of the Jewish Scriptures, especially the Laws, the Histories, and the Psalms, underwent the revision which brought them approximately to their present form. It is therefore extremely valuable that we should be able to study the psychological characteristics of a typical Levite of that age. From this point of view hardly any part of Chronicles is without significance. Thus the midrashic stories, whatever their value otherwise, at least reveal a great deal regarding the mental and moral outlook of the writer and his contemporaries.

“Chronicles,” it has been said (Bennett, _Expositor’s Bible_, p. 20), “is an object-lesson in ancient historical composition.” But it ought also to teach us that history is something more than the record of occurrences. Facts are fundamental, but of profound importance also is the attitude in which we approach them.

To sum up the whole matter of this section. Compared with Samuel‒Kings, Chronicles is of little or no value as a record of the history of the Judean kingdom. Where it differs from those books, in almost all cases the earlier account is the more accurate and trustworthy. In what Chronicles _adds_, there may sometimes be found traditional developments of genuine historical facts. Even if they should prove to be few, it is possible that there may be among them some points of high importance for our understanding of the Old Testament records. Finally, as a product of the Greek period, Chronicles is very valuable in illustrating the methods, ideals, and temperament of the Levitical classes of Jerusalem about that time.

These results are disappointing only if we insist on treating Chronicles as a manual of early Judean history instead of as a remarkable and in some ways unique religious work.

§ 8. THE RELIGIOUS VALUE OF CHRONICLES

Chronicles has suffered by comparison with the fresher, more human, history in Samuel and Kings. It has seemed to modern taste somewhat dry and uninspiring. To the superficial reader any religious feeling in the book is devoted to the concerns of a ritual that has long since passed away, and with which we might in any case have little sympathy. And, of course, the contrast is still more unfavourable if it be made with the books which contain the noblest utterances of Jewish faith. Job in his anguish crying “though He slay me yet will I trust Him”; the Psalmist fearless of all ill since God is with him; Hosea who wrote of God “I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings”――these stand on a higher spiritual level than the Chronicler. None the less, there _is_ virtue, and even great virtue, in Chronicles, and failure to perceive it only argues lack of insight on our part.

In the first place, if Temple ritual and observance of the precepts of the Law bulk too largely in the Chronicler’s conception of the religious life, he had much excuse for his attitude. In his day and generation, faithfulness to Jehovah and to that moral and spiritual interpretation of life for which the worship of Jehovah stood, inevitably involved participation in the organised services which centred in the Temple. Whatever its imperfections, the Temple at Jerusalem in his time was performing a great religious work in keeping alive zeal for Jehovah and His Law in the face of much degenerate heathenism. Moreover it is an unfair and a false assumption to suppose that his manifest devotion to the ritual necessarily or probably meant that his religion was mere formalism or his creed poorly conceived. Behind the parade of the formalities of worship burns a living faith. The freedom with which the Chronicler has retold the history to conform with his religious views is indeed the measure of the force of his beliefs. We have already noted (p. xlix) as regards one midrashic passage that it is essentially a sermon on the need for trust in God. The Chronicler was passionately convinced that virtue is rewarded and vice is punished. He believed in a God supremely just yet merciful, One who rules directly and personally in human life, destroying evil, guiding and fostering all that is true and good. “The might of nations counted as nothing before Him. Obedience and faith in Jehovah were more effective instruments in the hands of Israel’s kings than powerful armies and strong alliances.” It is easy to smile at the Chronicler’s belief that piety is necessarily rewarded by worldly prosperity, and sin by worldly misfortune. But, if the life and teaching of Jesus Christ have led us to a deeper interpretation of life, that does not lessen the virtue of the Chronicler in maintaining his faith in God’s justice and vigilance, despite all the cruel evidences of the prosperity of the wicked. His doctrine of reward and punishment was crude, but after all he was striving, as best he knew how, to maintain the great central conviction of religion that “all things work together for good to them that love God.” Everywhere his work is dominated by the sense of right and wrong, and a clear-eyed perception of the absolute distinction between them. He brings all men and all things to a moral and religious test. The imperishable worth of Chronicles will ever be that it is the record of a man’s endeavour to present, in terms of national experience, the eternal laws of the spiritual realm.

Finally, since the Chronicler was retelling the past in terms of the present, we know that these beliefs of his were not rules applied in theory to history and ignored in present practice. They were the convictions by which his own soul lived. No one can afford to despise a man who was prepared to walk by the light of such a faith amid the difficulties and the perils which surrounded the enfeebled Jerusalem of that age. As Curtis says, “it was under the tutelage of men like the Chronicler that the Maccabees were nourished and the heroic age of Judaism began.” We must not allow any distaste for legalism in religion to blind us to the virtues of the post-exilic Jews. The very rigidity of the ritual and the doctrine was essential to the preservation of the nobler elements in the faith. In the memorable words of Wellhausen (_Prolegomena_, pp. 497 f.), “At a time when all nationalities, and at the same time all bonds of religion and national customs were beginning to be broken up in the seeming cosmos and real chaos of the Graeco-Roman Empire, the Jews stood out like a rock in the midst of the ocean. When the natural conditions of independent nationality all failed them, they nevertheless artificially maintained it with an energy truly marvellous, and thereby preserved for themselves, and at the same time for the whole world, an eternal good.” Chronicles may justly claim to have played a part in that extraordinary triumph.

§ 9. NAME AND POSITION IN THE CANON

_Name._ The Hebrew title is _Dibhrē Hayyāmīm_, literally _The Acts_ (or _Sayings_) _of the Days_. In the Greek Version (the Septuagint) Chronicles was regarded as supplementary to Samuel and Kings, and so received the title “[Books of] the Omitted Acts” παραλειπομένων or “the Omitted Acts of the Kings (_or_ Reigns) of Judah.” This name, moreover, passed into the Latin Vulgate, “(_Libri_) _Paralipomenōn_.” The title _Chronicles_ seems to be due to a remark made by St Jerome, who, in commenting on the Hebrew title, wrote that the book might more appropriately be styled the “Chronicle of the whole of sacred history” (_Prologus in Libros Regum_, edited by Vallarsi, ix. 458). The use of the phrase is also suggested by a similar expression (literally “the book of the Acts of the Days of...”) found some twenty times in Kings, and commonly rendered “the book of the chronicles of...” e.g. 1 Kings xiv. 19. On the whole, _Chronicles_ is a satisfactory title¹.

¹ It is, however, open to the objection that an inexperienced
reader may make the mistake of supposing that these
references in Kings to “the book of the chronicles of the
kings of Israel [Judah]” are references to the canonical
Chronicles.

_Division._ The division of Chronicles into two books (as in the English Versions) probably originated in the Septuagint (LXX.); the MSS. A and B both mark the division. It entered the English Version through the Latin Vulgate. On the other hand, Rabbinical evidence (Talmud, _Baba Bathra_ 15a; and the Masōrah) and the Christian Fathers testify that among the Hebrews the book was undivided: so Origen (_apud_ Eusebius _Church History_ vi. 25, 2) and Jerome (_Domnioni et Rogatiano_).

_Position in Canon._ In the English Version Chronicles stands next after Kings, the Historical Books being grouped together. This arrangement was derived from the Septuagint through the Latin Vulgate. The order of the Hebrew Bible is different. There the books are arranged in three sections, of which the first contains the Books of the Pentateuch, the second includes the Historical Books from Joshua to Kings, while the third (Hebrew “Kĕthūbhīm”) contains Chronicles. The books of this third section seem to have been the last to receive Canonical Authority among the Jews. Kings thus appears to have been taken into the Canon before Chronicles.