but of a compiler and editor. An appreciation of this fact is essential to an understanding of his unique history. It also tends to enhance its historical value, for it is obvious that in general the nearer the records stand to the events the greater their accuracy and authenticity. of view iarities Chron icler Since his name is not known, the final editor of this extensive history may Point be conventionally designated as the Chronicler. From his modifications of and the older narrative of Samuel-Kings, from his systematic omissions, as well pecul as from the passages which came originally from his pen, it is possible to de- of the termine definitely his point of view and distinctive peculiarities. Like the writers of the late priestly school, his interests are ecclesiastical rather than national, ritualistic rather than prophetic, and didactic rather than historical. He was interested in Judah, because in it was the temple, and in the temple, because about it gathered the ceremonial institutions which he regarded as the beginning and end of existence. History was to him important simply because it gave the background and recorded the beginnings of these institutions, and because it furnished apt illustrations of the peculiar ethical and religious principles which were uppermost in his mind. In common with that post-exilic Judaism whose point of view is likewise reflected in the noncanonical writings, which he quotes, he was dominated by the natural and irresistible tendency to idealize the past and project back into it the conditions and institutions existing in his day. Thus a comparison with the older parallel narratives of Samuel and Kings at once shows that numbers are often raised from hundreds to thousands (cf. I Chr. 2214, II Chr. 133. 17, 148, 1714-19, 28. ), gold takes the place of brass, the priest of the warrior, and a miracle of the victory won by the swords in the hands of Israel's gallant defenders. David is regarded by him as the founder of the post-exilic guilds of singers and the organizer of the elaborate temple ritual, even though the sanctuary itself was not built until the days of Solomon and did not attain its dominant religious prestige until centuries later. In I Chronicles 26 he appears even to have forgotten this fact and refers to the gates of the temple (designated by their Persian name) as already existing in the day of David. fication sources The Chronicler lived in an age when zeal for the ritual had almost com- Modipletely obscured the historical perspective. Certain accepted theories were of his also regarded as more authoritative than recorded facts. It was therefore earlier doubtless in all honesty that he at times modified his older sources. Thus the later idealization of Solomon led him to invert the testimony of I Kings 911-14 and represent the builder of the temple as receiving certain cities from Hiram of Tyre rather than ceding them to him (II Chr. 82). The later conception of Jehovah's rule and the new belief in a personal adversary led him to state that David was influenced by Satan, not by Jehovah, to number the people (cf. II Sam. 241 and I Chr. 21). To reconcile the story with the more familiar version in I Samuel 17, he represents Elhanan as slaying, not Goliath, as in II Samuel 211o, but the brother of Goliath (I Chr. 205). Some of the variations from the narrative in Samuel and Kings are doubtless due to the fact that the Chronicler followed a different tradition, as for example, when he states that Jehoshaphat joined with Ahaziah in a commercial enterprise Omissions His aim to write an ecclesi (II Chr. 2035), while according to I Kings 22" he refused to unite with him. Sometimes his quotations from distinct sources introduce absolute contradictions into his narrative, as for example, when he affirms, following Kings, that Asa and Jehoshaphat did not remove the high places (I Kgs. 154, 2213, II Chr. 1511, 2033), although, quoting from late traditions which idealized these kings, he had already stated that they did remove the high places (II Chr. 145, 17°). In every case the reason for the variation is transparent and reveals his peculiar point of view and aim. His omissions are equally suggestive. Those facts which did not suit his purpose or were contrary to his theory of the history were omitted. Thus nothing is said of David's crimes and the national disasters that followed in their train, for in his thought David was the man after God's own heart, to whom was due the conception and organization of the temple. Many references to the primitive idolatry which survived in Judah until the Babylonian exile (e.g., I Kgs. 1422-24, II Kgs. 18') are passed over in silence; no mention is made of Hezekiah's tribute to Assyria (II Kgs. 1814-16). Most significant of all is the almost complete absence of the Northern Israelitish history which figures so prominently in Kings. Saul is only introduced on the fatal battle-field of Gilboa, and then to be condemned. For the Chronicler the chosen people are those of the South, and Jehovah is not with Israel (II Chr. 25). Judah, Benjamin-which he always associates with the southern kingdom-and Levi are the three tribes which command his first attention in the opening genealogies and throughout his history. The northern kingdom has so completely vanished from his vision that Israel is frequently used as a designation of Judah (e.g., II Chr. 212, 281). The reason for this omission is obvious. According to his retributive philosophy of history the early fall of the northern kingdom was conclusive evidence of its rejection by Jehovah. More important still was the historical fact that the antecedents of the later Judean community and the temple, which alone interested the Chronicler, all went back to Judah, not to Israel. His aim, however, was not to give an ordinary history of Judah. Many incidents of great political significance are ignored. Nor was it to write the history of Israel's religion, else he would not have passed over without astical mention the great work of Elijah, Amos, and Hosea. It was rather to record history the history of Judah, conceived of from the first as a sacred state centring about the temple, with the priests, the Levites, and earlier the king and his court, as its officials. Although the words, church and ecclesiastical, are in a sense anachronisms, the Judah which the Chronicler knows and pictures is nothing more than an ecclesiastical state, and his narrative as a whole may best be designated as the Ecclesiastical History of Judah and the Temple. The prominence which he gives to the Levites and the frequency with tion in which he introduces into his quotations from earlier sources detailed descriptions of the temple music and especially of the levitical guilds of singers, munity strongly suggest that he belongs to one of these. Connection with the ruling class in the Jewish hierarchy put him in possession of the current priestly traditions and doubtless enabled him to consult the then extant histories of his race. His posi the com refer The references of the Chronicler at first glance give the impression that His in writing I and II Chronicles he had before him a large number of writings ences to in addition to those now included in the Old Testament. Of these sixteen earlier hisdistinct titles are given. Four of these, the Book of the Kings of Judah, tories the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, the Book of the Kings of Israel, and the Affairs of the Kings of Israel, are without much doubt variant titles of the same work. To these may be added in all probability the title Midrash of the Book of the Kings (II Chr. 2427), for it is referred to in II Chronicles 24 as containing a group of facts kindred to those found in the work bearing the preceding titles. Furthermore, as has been acutely urged, it is difficult to see why, if distinct and yet relating to the reigns of all the kings, it should be referred to but once by the Chronicler. of the seers Moreover, as will be shown later, most of his quotations from non-canon- Words ical sources evidently came from what might most appropriately be desig- prophnated a Midrash (cf. p. 26). When the Chronicler at the conclusion of a ets and reign does not refer his readers for further information to a book having one of the five titles cited above, he substitutes some special authority, as for example the Words of the Seer Samuel, the Prophet Nathan and the Seer Gad (I Chr. 2929), or the Words of Nathan the Prophet and the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite and the Visions of Iddo the Seer (II Chr. 929). Each of these titles is connected with the name of some prophet or seer mentioned in the history of the period. The fact that they are always introduced as substitutes for the titles of the more comprehensive work, and never appear with them in connection with the same reign, seems to indicate that they simply refer to sections of the greater Book of the Kings in which these prophets figured. This conclusion is strongly confirmed by such passages as II Chronicles 2034, Now the other acts of Jehoshaphat, the earlier as well as the later, have already been recorded in the Words of Jehu the son of Hanani, which is inserted in the Book of the Kings of Israel, and by the Hebrew version of II Chronicles 3232, Now the acts of Hezekiah as well as his pious deeds have already been recorded in the Vision of the Prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz, in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. The natural implication of these statements is that possibly the Words and Vision were once originally distinct, but that they then constituted a section of the larger work. The remaining title, the Midrash of the Prophet Iddo (II Chr. 132), may have been distinct, but it is also possible that the Chronicler employed it as synonym of the work attributed to the same author and in II Chronicles 929 and 1215 refers to it under the variant titles, the Visions of Iddo the Seer and the Words of Iddo the Seer. The contents of the books of Chronicles support in general the inferences His drawn from the references to earlier sources. The many verbatim quota- Samueltions from the canonical books of Samuel and Kings and especially from the Kings sections which came from the late prophetic editor leave little doubt that they, like the earlier pentateuchal books, were before the Chronicler and were made by him the basis of his work. The history of the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, to which he so often refers, must necessarily remain largely a matter of conjecture. It is use of The Book of the of Ju Israel certain from the references and probable quotations from it that it was distinct from the Old Testament books of Samuel and Kings. It may Kings possibly have been based on these, but it also contained much else. This dah and additional material may in part have come from the larger Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, which the editor of Kings frequently mentions. There are occasionally found in the writings of the Chronicler detailed statistics which are probably authentic and which favor the conclusion that they were ultimately derived from an older source. In levitical and priestly circles the older histories would inevitably be modified and expanded very much as the Chronicler treated the material of Samuel and Kings. Another familiar and instructive illustration of the same transforming process is found by comparing the early Judean prophétic accounts of the exodus, the wilderness wandering, and the conquest of Canaan with the corresponding late priestly versions (cf. Vol. I, $63-116). Soon after the beginning of the Babylonian exile the originally distinct chronicles of the northern and southern kingdoms may have been blended into one work. The Midrash of the Book of the Kings It does not seem probable that the Chronicler had before him an exilic Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. Certainly most of his data, other than those from the canonical books of Samuel and Kings, if not, as has been claimed, his own creation, must have been taken from what may properly be called a Midrash of the Book of the Kings. The word midrash describes a large proportion of the literature of later Judaism. It is derived from the Hebrew word meaning to search out, explore. It is applied to an edifying story like Tobit, or to an address or exposition intended to bring out the implied or hidden meaning of a scriptural passage. Its aim is always didactic. If the story is highly embellished, it is to attract the reader and emphasize the moral. As in the modern didactic novel, the leading characters are frequently introduced simply to give expression to the teachings of the author (cf. p. 4). The passages not quoted by the Chronicler from his canonical source are excellent examples of this type of literature. They always relate to prominent historic characters and scenes. They usually start with certain well-authenticated facts. Questions suggested in the older source are answered at length, numbers are multiplied, all the details assume larger and more exalted proportions, right is always richly rewarded and wickedness signally punished, miracles are common, and prophets and kings deliver noble, majestic, spiritual addresses, embodying the best doctrines of later Judaism. Sometimes the story element is more prominent and sometimes the addresses. These didactic stories and addresses constitute the really distinctive element in the books of Chronicles. A few, and possibly all of them, may have been written by the Chronicler, who is imbued with their spirit and aim, but some appear to have been cited by him from an extensive Midrash of the Book of the Kings which probably grew up gradually on the basis of the earlier exilic Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. It must, however, be frankly admitted that the evidence which has led the latest commentators, like Benzinger and Kittel, to assign a large part of Chronicles to this source is meagre and not altogether decisive. The presence of the Chronicler's peculiar idioms and ideas throughout all these sections still furnishes a good basis for the thesis of the earlier German critics, who maintained that the Chronicler had but one source, Samuel-Kings, and that all else was the creation of his own active imagination. On the whole, however, the simplest and most satisfactory explanation of all the facts is that he had before him one or two midrashic sources to which he frequently refers under many different titles. In vocabulary and literary style, as well as in point of view, the stories which he takes from them are so closely related to those from the pen of the Chronicler that any detailed analysis is necessarily very uncertain and unsatisfactory. Their theological and moral ideas and their attitude toward the ritual are also closely parallel to those of the Chronicler himself. Some of them so obviously favor the Levites at the expense of the priests that they must have come, like the book of Chronicles, from the pens of Levites. of the in icles In general they may be dated in the century of religious and national Date revival which followed the reformation associated with Nehemiah and Ezra midabout 400 B.C. When the late priestly law was accepted as the absolute guide rashim of the community, the religious leaders sought not only to conform their Chronlives and those of their own generation to its definite and revolutionary demands, but they also began to rewrite history in order to bring the past into harmony with it. At the same time they were influenced by the desire to find in the precedents of the past, authority for the usages of their day. Thus not only Moses, but also David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah were represented as being strict upholders of the post-exilic institu tions. Since these midrashim stand so near in date, as well as point of view and literary style, to the work of the Chronicler, even if they could in each case be definitely distinguished, the analysis would be of little value. From the same periods probably come the apparent quotations in I Chron- Late priestly icles 151-15, 25-163, 211-27, 222-13, 281-19, 291-9, and possibly the nucleus of temple 23–26 and II Chronicles 244-14. They are based upon the briefer narratives history of Samuel and Kings. These, however, are revised, so that the priests and Levites figure as the guardians of the ark, and everything is done in accordance with the late priestly law. The Levites are divided into six classes, 153-9, instead of three as elsewhere by the Chronicler. The theme which binds together these different sections is their interest in the temple. They appear therefore to have been taken from a late priestly temple history, which may have been incorporated in the Midrash of the Book of the Kings, but was probably originally distinct. of view icler's Thus the Chronicler's work is the outgrowth of many earlier writings, Point and represents the culmination of a long process of development. He him- of the self does not stand alone, but is rather the final editor or epitomizer of the Chronwork of a school of writers. Their predecessors were the editors of Judges, school Samuel, and Kings, who likewise selected their stories to illustrate their religious and ethical doctrines. Their contemporaries were those who wrote the very late priestly stories in the Pentateuch (e.g., the account of the war with Midian, Vol. I, § 101). Their successors were the authors of the later Jewish midrashim, who for example in the book of Jubilee rewrote |