The Books of Chronicles

Transcriber’s Notes

The cover image was provided by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

Punctuation has been standardized.

Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for easier reading.

This book was written in a period when many words had not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated with a Transcriber’s Note.

Index references have not been checked for accuracy.

The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image adequately.

Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which they appear.

THE CAMBRIDGE BIBLE FOR SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

General Editor for the Old Testament:⁠—

A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D.

DEAN OF ELY

THE BOOKS OF
CHRONICLES

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

C. F. CLAY, Manager

London: FETTER LANE, E.C.

Edinburgh: 100 PRINCES STREET

New York: G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS

Bombay, Calcutta and Madras: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd.

Toronto: J. M. DENT AND SONS, Ltd.

Tokyo: THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA

All rights reserved

THE BOOKS OF
CHRONICLES

With Maps, Notes and Introduction

by

W. A. L. ELMSLIE, M.A.

Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge

Cambridge:
at the University Press
1916

First Edition 1899
Second Edition 1916

PREFACE
BY THE
GENERAL EDITOR FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT

The present General Editor for the Old Testament in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges desires to say that, in accordance with the policy of his predecessor the Bishop of Worcester, he does not hold himself responsible for the particular interpretations adopted or for the opinions expressed by the editors of the several Books, nor has he endeavoured to bring them into agreement with one another. It is inevitable that there should be differences of opinion in regard to many questions of criticism and interpretation, and it seems best that these differences should find free expression in different volumes. He has endeavoured to secure, as far as possible, that the general scope and character of the series should be observed, and that views which have a reasonable claim to consideration should not be ignored, but he has felt it best that the final responsibility should, in general, rest with the individual contributors.

A. F. KIRKPATRICK.

Cambridge.

Stand ye still and see the salvation of the Lord with you, O Judah and Jerusalem.

2 Chronicles xx. 17.

CONTENTS

PREFATORY NOTE

The author desires to acknowledge with gratitude his indebtedness to Mr S. A. Cook for his kindness in reading the first proofs and in making many most valuable suggestions and criticisms, and to the General Editor of the Series, the Dean of Ely, for his very helpful revision of the proofs. His obligation to Professor W. E. Barnes is referred to on p. lx.

W. A. L. E.

INTRODUCTION

§ 1: Characteristics of Ancient Historical Writings

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 type[¹]. 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 ancient[¹] 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 Chronicles[¹].

[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.

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 Britannica¹¹, 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.

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 exactly[¹]: 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 omitted[¹]. 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. 1–30[¹]). 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 times[¹]. 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 Britannica¹¹). 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 Britannica¹¹ 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 title[¹].

[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.

In the Hebrew Bible the “Kĕthūbhīm” (Hagiographa) are usually arranged thus:—first the Poetical Books (Psalms, Proverbs, Job), next the Five Rolls or Megillōth (Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), and lastly the three books Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah, and Chronicles. This is the usual Hebrew tradition, though it is surprising to find Ezra (which begins with the closing verses of Chronicles) put before Chronicles. The wording of Matthew xxiii. 35, however, “From the blood of Abel the righteous (see Genesis iv. 10 f.) unto the blood of Zachariah (see 2 Chronicles xxiv. 20 ff.)” suggests that as early as our Lord’s day Chronicles was regarded as the last, just as Genesis was the first, book of the Hebrew Canon. It is probable, therefore, that Chronicles found its way into the Canon after Ezra–Nehemiah, the latter book being needed to represent the post-exilic period of the history, whereas Chronicles covered ground already occupied by the books of Samuel and Kings.

§ 10. Text and Versions of Chronicles

Text. The Hebrew (Masoretic) text in Chronicles is, on the whole, well preserved, although by no means free from textual errors (compare 1 Chronicles vi. 28). Many of these occur, as one would expect, in the lists of proper names. Olstead (in the American Journal of Semitic Languages, October 1913) has given reasons for holding that occasionally the original text of Chronicles may have suffered from assimilation to the text of Samuel–Kings. Further, we note a few phrases and passages which seem to be scribal additions (see § 3, p. [xxii]). An interesting scribal omission of late date is noted on 2 Chronicles xxviii. 20. In passages which are parallel to the older canonical books Chronicles has occasionally preserved a superior reading, e.g. 1 Chronicles xx. 4, Hebrew and LXX. “there arose war at Gezer” = 2 Samuel xxi. 18, “there was again war ... at Gob”; or again, 1 Chronicles viii. 53, “Eshbaal” = 2 Samuel ii. 8 “Ishbosheth”; or compare 1 Chronicles xiv. 14, note on go not up.

Versions. (1) Greek Versions. What is commonly called the Septuagint (LXX.) of Chronicles is now recognised to be not the original LXX., but a later Greek translation, which most scholars (especially Torrey, Ezra Studies) consider to be the rendering of Theodotion. [For criticism of the view that it is Theodotion’s rendering see the article by Olstead mentioned above.] In the main this rendering is a close reproduction of the Masoretic text, and of little value except for determining the official Hebrew text of the second century. The old LXX., unfortunately, no longer exists for 1 Chronicles i.–2 Chronicles xxxiv.; but for 2 Chronicles xxxv., xxxvi. it has been preserved in 1 Esdras i.—a fact of great good fortune, not merely for the textual criticism of that passage, but for the light it sheds on the relations and characteristics of the Greek Versions.

(2) The Old Latin Version was made from the old LXX. which is now lost except for the last two chapters of Chronicles, as stated above. It would therefore be of great value for criticism, but alas! only a few fragments survive.

The later Latin Version, the Vulgate, made by Jerome, is of small value, as it represents only the official Hebrew text.

(3) The Syriac Version, known as the Peshitṭa, is of even smaller value for textual criticism. Unlike the close rendering of other books in the Peshitṭa, Chronicles constantly has the characteristics of a paraphrase rather than a translation. One example will suffice. For “Joel the chief and Shaphat the second,” 1 Chronicles v. 12, the Peshitṭa has “And Joel went forth at their head and judged them and taught them the scriptures well.” The Peshitṭa is further noteworthy for curious omissions (and substitutions), e.g. 2 Chronicles iv. 10–22; xi. 5–xii. 12 (for which 1 Kings xii. 25–30, followed by 1 Kings xiv. 1–9, is substituted).

For further information regarding the text and versions of Chronicles, see the edition by Curtis, pp. 35 ff.

§ 11. Literature

Of the more recent literature on Chronicles the following is a list of the principal works which have been consulted in the preparation of this volume.

J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena (1885), especially chapter vi.

W. H. Bennett, The Books of Chronicles in the Expositor’s Bible (1894).

F. Brown, Chronicles in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (1898).

W. R. Smith and S. R. Driver, Chronicles in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899).

I. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Chronik (1901).

R. Kittel, Die Bücher der Chronik (1902).

C. F. Kent, Israel’s Historical and Biographical Narratives (Student’s Old Testament, 1905).

W. R. Harvie-Jellie, Chronicles in the Century Bible (1906).

E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, Chronicles (the International Critical Commentary, 1910).

S. R. Driver, Literature of the Old Testament, pp. 517–540 (8th edition 1909).

W. R. Smith and S. A. Cook, Chronicles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1910).

C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (1910).

A. T. Olstead, Source Study and the Biblical Text in the American Journal of Semitic Languages (October, 1913).

Students interested in the Hebrew text should consult Kittel’s edition of the Old Testament in Hebrew; Kittel’s Chronicles in Hebrew in The Sacred Books of the Old Testament (edited by P. Haupt); Torrey’s Ezra Studies, and the commentary by Curtis and Madsen mentioned above; also Arno Kropat, “Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik,” in the Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (Beihefte) xvi. (1909).

N.B. The commentary on Chronicles according to the text of the Authorised Version was edited in this series by the Rev. Professor W. E. Barnes, D.D., in 1899. For this new edition which is based on the Revised Version the present writer is entirely responsible. He desires here to acknowledge the courtesy of Professor Barnes who has kindly permitted the retention of notes from the first edition.

W. A. L. E.

September 1st, 1915.

THE FIRST BOOK OF
THE CHRONICLES

Chapters I.–IX. GENEALOGIES.

Chapter I.

The Genealogies of the Peoples.

The historical narrative of the books of Chronicles commences in chapter x. with the record of the defeat and death of King Saul on Mt Gilboa.

The first nine chapters are occupied almost entirely by a series of genealogical lists. Starting from the primeval age, the line is traced from Adam to the origin of Israel, showing its place among the nations of the ancient world. Attention is then confined to the descendants of Israel, amongst whom the genealogies of Judah (particularly, the line of David), of Levi, and of Benjamin, are given prominence. Finally the ancestry of Saul, and a list of inhabitants of Jerusalem is recorded.

The modern reader is inclined to regard these statistics as the least important section of the book, but the fact that the bare lists of names are so foreign to our taste should serve at least as a valuable warning of the difference between our outlook and that of the Chronicler. It is in the highest degree important to understand the motives which caused the Chronicler to give these lists of names as the fitting introduction to the history, since the same motives operate throughout the book and determine the standpoint from which the entire history is considered.

(1) In the first place the genealogies were not recorded by the Chronicler simply for the archaeological interest they possess. They served a most practical purpose, in that they helped to determine for the Jewish community of the Chronicler’s time what families were of proper Levitical descent and might claim a share in the privileges pertaining thereto, and—on a wider scale—what families might justly be considered to be the pure blood of Israel. How serious the consequences entailed by the absence of a name from such lists might be is well illustrated by Ezra ii. 61–63 (= Nehemiah vii. 63–65), “the children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz ... sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they deemed polluted and put away from the priesthood.” On the other hand the Jew who could successfully trace his ancestry in the great lists knew himself indubitably a member of the chosen people and was confident of his part in the covenantal grace and in all those hopes which the faith of Israel inspired and sustained.

(2) The practical aspect of these lists was thus essentially connected with high religious sentiment. They were an expression of the continuity of Israel, a declaration that the Present was one with the Past, a witness and an assurance of the unfailing grace of Israel’s God. The genealogies therefore are in perfect harmony with the spirit and purpose of the Chronicler’s work—see the Introduction [§ 6].

(3) Finally, in the lists of place-names and genealogies of inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem, various facts of great historical interest are preserved—see Introduction § 7, pp. [xlvii] f. and (e.g.) ii. 42 note.

Chapter i. contains the genealogies of the earliest age, showing the origin of the nations. It concludes with a list of the chiefs of Edom. The names are those given in the genealogies of Genesis i.–xxxvi., but the lists are abbreviated to the utmost by the omission of statements of relationship. Evidently the Chronicler was able to assume that the connection between the names was a matter of common knowledge.

1–4 (compare Genesis v. 3–32).
A Genealogy from Adam to the Sons of Noah.

¹ADAM, Seth, Enosh; ²Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared;

1. Seth ... Noah] This genealogy of ten antediluvian patriarchs follows Genesis v. 3–32 (P), the “Sethite” line as compared with Genesis iv. 17–24 (J) where the descent is traced through Cain. There is some ancient connection between the list and the Babylonian tradition of ten kings before the Flood (see Ryle, Genesis, pp. 88 ff. in this series). For the symbols J and P, see the Introduction p. [xx.]

Enosh] A poetical word which, like Adam in prose writings, was used as a generic term for “man.”

³Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech; ⁴Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

3. Enoch] Hebrew Ḥanôkh. In verse 33 the same name is more correctly rendered Hanoch, but the Revised Version not unwisely has here retained the famous name in the form (derived through the Vulgate from the LXX.) with which the Authorized Version has made us familiar; compare Genesis iv. 17, and v. 21.

5–23.
The Genealogy of the Nations.

The table which follows is taken from Genesis x. 2–29. It is geographical rather than ethnological, i.e. neighbouring nations are regarded as having the same descent. The world as then known is divided into three areas of which that in the north and west is assigned to the Sons of Japheth (5–7), the southern to the Sons of Ham, and the middle and eastern to the Sons of Shem (17–23). Had the arrangement been according to actual descent the Semitic Zidonians, for instance, would not be described as the offspring of Ham (verse 13).

The passage, when analysed, divides as follows: 5–9 (a general table of the descendants of Japheth and Ham), 10–16 (an appendix to the descendants of Ham), 17 (a general table of the descendants of Shem), 18–23 (an appendix to the descendants of Shem). Of these four sections, the general tables, verses 5–9 and 17, belong to the “Priestly” narrative of the Hexateuch, whilst the two appendices, verses 10–16, 18–23, are from the earlier narrative known as J. For a full examination of the many interesting questions raised by this account of the origin of the nations known to the Israelites the reader must be referred to the commentaries on Genesis where such discussion is appropriate (see Ryle, Genesis, in this series; or more fully Skinner, Genesis, pp. 188 ff.). Here a few remarks of a general character must suffice.

With the exception of Nimrod the names are those of nations and tribes (e.g. Madai [Medes], Javan [Greeks]) or countries (e.g. Mizraim [Egypt]) or cities (Zidon). The names are eponymous: that is to say “each nation is represented by an imaginary personage bearing its name, who is called into existence for the purpose of expressing its unity, but is at the same time conceived as its real progenitor”; and the relations existing or supposed to exist between the various races and ethnic groups are then set forth under the scheme of a family relationship between the eponymous ancestors. This procedure may seem strange to us but it was both natural and convenient for a period when men had not at their disposal our scientific methods of classification. It must have been specially easy for Semites, like Israel, who in everyday life were accustomed to call a population the “sons of” the district or town which they inhabited. But in truth the practice was widespread in antiquity, and, if a parallel is desired, an excellent one may be found in the Greek traditions respecting the origins of the several branches of the Hellenic race. Whether the ancients believed that these eponymous ancestors really had lived is somewhat uncertain. Probably they did, although such names as Rodanim (verse 7) and Ludim (verse 11) where the name is actually left in a plural form (as we might say “Londoners”) makes it difficult to doubt that in some cases the convention was conscious and deliberate. The notion that the chief nations of antiquity were differentiated from one another within some three generations of descent from a common ancestor, Noah, is plainly inaccurate. Equally untenable is the primary conception assumed in this table that the great races of mankind have come into being simply through the expansion and subdivision of single families.

It must not be imagined that these facts in any way destroy the value of the table. Historically, it is a document of great importance as a systematic record of the racial and geographical beliefs of the Hebrews. Its value would be increased could we determine precisely the period when it was originally drawn up, but unfortunately it is not possible to do so with certainty. Arguments based on the resemblance between this table and the nations mentioned in the books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah are inconclusive; nor does the fact that the general tables (verses 5–9, 17) now form part of P, the “Priestly” document, help us greatly, for we cannot argue from the date of the document as a whole to the date of its component laws or traditions, which of course may be much earlier. Religiously, the worth of this table is to be seen in the conviction of the fundamental unity of the human race, which is here expressed. The significance of this may best be felt if we contrast the Greek traditions which display a keen interest in the origins of their own peoples but none at all in that of the barbarians. Ancient society in general was vitiated by failure to recognise the moral obligation involved in our common humanity. Even Israel did not wholly transcend this danger, and its sense of spiritual pre-eminence may have taken an unworthy form in Jewish particularism; but at least, as we here see, there lay beneath the surface the instinct that ultimately the families of the earth are one, and their God one.

5–7 (= Genesis x. 2–4).
The Sons of Japheth.

⁵The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

5. The sons of Japheth] The writer begins with the northern peoples.

Gomer] to be identified with the Gimirrai of the Assyrian monuments, the Κιμμέριοι of the Greeks, who migrated from South Russia into Asia Minor (Pontus and Cappadocia) under the pressure of the Scythians (Herodotus I. 103; IV. 11, 12; compare Ezekiel xxxviii. 6, Revised Version).

Magog] In Ezekiel xxxviii. 2 (Revised Version) judgement is denounced on “Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal” who is represented as accompanied in his migration by the “hordes” of Gomer and Togarmah (verse 6), “all of them riding upon horses” (verse 15). Magog represents therefore one of several tribes of northern nomads, possibly the Scythians.

Madai] i.e. Media or the Medes. Of the many allusions in the Old Testament to this famous people, the first is found in 2 Kings xvii. 6; compare also Isaiah xiii. 17; Jeremiah xxv. 25; Esther i. 3; Daniel i. 9. The Median Empire dates from the 7th century B.C., but the Medes are referred to by Assyrian inscriptions of the 9th century, at which time they seem to occupy the mountainous regions to the south and south-west of the Caspian Sea. They were the first Aryan race to play an important part in Semitic history.

Javan] the Ionians, a branch of the Greek peoples. They were already settled in the Aegean islands and on the west coast of Asia Minor at the dawn of Greek history. Being a seafaring nation and having a slave-trade with Tyre (Ezekiel xxvii. 13; Joel iii. 6 [Hebrew iv. 6 “Grecians”]), they became known to Israel at an early date. In some late passages of the Old Testament (e.g. Zechariah ix. 13; Daniel viii. 21, xi. 2) Javan denotes the world-power of the Greeks, established by the conquests of Alexander the Great and maintained in part by his successors, in particular the Seleucid kings of Syria.

Tubal, and Meshech] compare Isaiah lxvi. 19; Psalms cxx. 5. They are mentioned together Ezekiel xxvii. 13, xxxii. 26, xxxviii. 2, 3, xxxix. 1; and are to be identified with the Τιβαρηνοί and Μοσχοί of Herodotus III. 94, who are the “Tabali” and “Muski” of the monuments. In the time of the later Assyrian Empire they lived as neighbours in the country north-east of Cilicia, but at a later period the Τιβαρηνοί (Tubal) lived in Pontus, and the Μοσχοί (Meshech) further East towards the Caspian. (The Meshech of this verse is to be distinguished from the Meshech son of Shem mentioned in verse 17.)

Tiras] Not the Thracians (so Josephus Antiquities of the Jews I. 6), but most probably the Tyrseni, a piratical people frequenting the coasts and islands of the north Aegean. They are mentioned among the seafarers who assailed Egypt in the reign of Merenptah.

⁶And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Diphath[¹], and Togarmah.

[¹] In Genesis x. 3, Riphath.

6. Ashkenaz] In Jeremiah li. 27 “the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz” are to be summoned against Babylon. The home of the Ashkenaz is therefore somewhere in the neighbourhood of Ararat (Armenia); and they are apparently the Asguza of the monuments, and perhaps may be identified with the Scythians.

Diphath] The LXX., Vulgate and some Hebrew MSS. have Riphath (so also Genesis x. 3), which is to be preferred. The identity of the place or people is not yet ascertained.

Togarmah] Perhaps in Armenia, but the evidence is inconclusive. That it was a neighbour of Gomer, Tubal, and Meshech appears probable from Ezekiel xxvii. 14, where Togarmah is mentioned as trading with Tyre in horses and mules. Compare also Ezekiel xxxviii. 6, and the note above on Magog.

⁷And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Rodanim[¹].

[¹] In Genesis x. 4, Dodanim.

7. Elishah] Ezekiel (xxvii. 7) addressing Tyre, “Blue and purple from the isles of Elishah was thine awning.” Elishah has not been identified with certainty. It has been supposed to be Carthage. Another suggestion is Alashiya (of the Tell el-Amarna Letters) which may be a Cilician district, or perhaps rather Cyprus; compare the note on Kittim below.

Tarshish] generally now identified with Tartessus, a Phoenician town in the south of Spain. This is supported by the various references to Tarshish as a Tyrian colony rich in minerals and far from Palestine (see, e.g. Ezekiel xxvii. 12; Jonah i. 3; Psalms lxxii. 10; 2 Chronicles ix. 21). To identify it with Tarsus, the famous town in Cilicia, is in some ways attractive, but is on the whole less probable.

Kittim] The inhabitants of Cyprus are meant, “Kittim” being derived from Kition (modern Larnaca), the name of one of its oldest towns. In later times Kittim (Chittim) is used vaguely of Western islands (Jeremiah ii. 10; Ezekiel xxvii. 6) or nations; “the ships of Kittim” (Daniel xi. 30) are the Roman ships; “the land of Chittim” (Χεττιείμ, 1 Maccabees i. 1) is Macedonia (1 Maccabees viii. 5).

Rodanim] No doubt the Rhodians are meant; their island was celebrated even in the days of Homer. On the spelling Dodanim (Revised Version margin; Genesis x. 4), compare the note on Diphath above. The Hebrew letters r (ר) and d (ד) are easily confused.

8, 9 (= Genesis x. 6, 7).
The Sons of Ham.

⁸The sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.

8. The sons of Ham] The southern peoples are next enumerated.

Cush] The Hebrew name here transliterated Cush is several times translated “Ethiopia” (e.g. 2 Kings xix. 9; Isaiah xviii. 1) no doubt rightly. On the inscriptions of Asshur-bani-pal frequent mention is made of Ku-su (Ku-u-su) “Ethiopia” in connection with Mu-ṣur “Egypt.” The Cushites were not Negroes but a brown race like the modern Nubians (Soudanese). The “sons of Cush,” however, seem to be tribes located mostly on the Arabian side of the Red Sea, verse 9 below.

Mizraim] is without doubt Egypt. In form the word may be dual, and it is generally said to mean the two Egypts, Upper and Lower.

Put] This people is mentioned among the helpers of Egypt in Jeremiah, in Ezekiel (twice), and in Nahum. In Ezekiel xxvii. 10 it appears among the auxiliary troops of Tyre. Put used therefore to be identified with the Libyans of the north coast of Africa, but more probably it denotes the Punt of the Egyptian monuments, i.e. the African coast of the Red Sea.

Canaan] the eponym of the pre-Israelitish population of Palestine west of Jordan. Actual racial affinities are here disregarded or unperceived, for the Canaanites (except the Philistines and Phoenicians on the strip of coastland) were Semites and spoke a language closely resembling Hebrew. That they are here reckoned as Hamites and made a “brother” of Egypt is due perhaps in part to the frequent dominations of Palestine by Egypt, but more probably to the political and religious antagonism between Israel and the Canaanites, which suggested that they ought to be most closely associated with Egypt, Israel’s traditional oppressor. Note that in Genesis ix. 25–27 (where hostile feeling against Canaan is prominent) “Canaan” is not said to be the son of Ham, but takes Ham’s place as a son of Noah (Ryle, Genesis, p. 127).

⁹And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabta, and Raama, and Sabteca. And the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.

9. the sons of Cush] According to some authorities Seba and Havilah were tribes or districts on the African coast of the Red Sea, whilst Sabta and Raama and Sabteca were in Arabia. It is somewhat more probable that all (except Seba) were located on the Arabian side of the Red Sea.

Seba] In Isaiah xliii. 3 and xlv. 14 Seba (the Sabeans) is mentioned along with Egypt and Cush, and in Psalms lxxii. 10 along with Sheba. Probably a district on the African side of the Red Sea is meant.

Sheba, and Dedan] Also in verse 32, where see note. Sheba is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament (e.g. Jeremiah vi. 20; 1 Kings x. 1 ff. = 2 Chronicles ix. 1 ff.; Isaiah lx. 6) as a distant land, rich in gold, frankincense, and precious stones. It was a flourishing and wealthy state, at one period (circa 700 B.C.) the centre of power and civilisation in south Arabia. Dedan was probably a merchant tribe, specially associated with Sheba (compare Ezekiel xxxviii. 13).

10–16 (= Genesis x. 8–18b).
Appendix. Other Descendants of Ham.

¹⁰And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

10. And Cush begat Nimrod] From the parallel passages in Genesis (x. 10, 11) it is apparent that Nimrod is the name of an individual, the traditional founder of the Babylonian-Assyrian Empire. As Cush is here called the father of Nimrod and in verse 8 is the son of Ham, Hebrew tradition would appear to have regarded Hamites as the founders of the Babylonian power. Possibly the Redactor of Genesis who combined these verses which belong to the tradition of J with verses 5–9 which are from “P” may have thought so. But in the independent “J” narrative it is very probable that Cush, father of Nimrod, represents the third or Kassite dynasty (Κοσσαῖοι) which held sway in Babylon from about 1750–1200 B.C. Even so, the identification of Nimrod himself remains a puzzle, and it is not yet possible to say whether he is a legendary or an historical character, or partly both.

began to be a mighty one in the earth] i.e. was the first grand monarch (for the idiom, compare Genesis ix. 20). In Genesis x. 9, he is further and quaintly described as “a mighty hunter before the Lord.”

¹¹And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,

11. Ludim] reckoned in Jeremiah xlvi. 9 and Ezekiel xxx. 5 (Revised Version “Lud”) among the auxiliary troops of Egypt (Mizraim). Probably not the Lydians of Asia Minor are meant, but a people of north Africa not yet known. Both this word and Lehabim may be variants for the Libyans, tribes west of Cyrene (compare 2 Chronicles xii. 3, xvi. 8). See also verse 17, note on Lud. Of the Anamim, Naphtuhim, nothing is certainly known.

¹²and Pathrusim, and Casluhim (from whence came the Philistines[¹]), and Caphtorim.

[¹] Hebrew Pelishtim.

12. Pathrusim] the inhabitants of Pathros (Isaiah xi. 11), i.e. Upper Egypt.

Casluhim] not identified.

from whence came the Philistines] Elsewhere (Jeremiah xlvii. 4; Amos ix. 7; compare Deuteronomy ii. 23) the Philistines are said to have come from Caphtor. It is natural therefore to think that an accidental transposition has taken place, and that this clause, whence ... Philistines, originally followed Caphtorim. Note, however, that the same order is found in Genesis x. 14.

Caphtorim] i.e. the inhabitants of Caphtor, which has usually been taken to mean the island of Crete, but is also plausibly identified with “Keftiu,” the south-west coastlands of Asia Minor. Compare Macalister, The Philistines, pp. 4 ff.

¹³And Canaan begat Zidon his firstborn, and Heth;

13. Canaan begat] Of the four sons of Ham—viz. Cush, Mizraim, Put, Canaan—note that the sons of Put are omitted. After the sons of Cush (verse 9), and of Mizraim (verse 11), we here pass to the sons of Canaan.