INTRODUCTION 1. Name, Contents, Plan, and Aim of the Chronicles.

The two books of the Chronicles originally formed one work, as their plan at once makes manifest, and were received into the Hebrew canon as such.

Not only were they reckoned as one in the enumeration of the books of the Old Testament (cf. Joseph. c. Apion, i. 8; Origen, in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 25; and Hieronym. Prolog. galeat.), but they were also regarded by the Masorites as one single work, as we learn from a remark of the Masora at the end of the Chronicle, that the verse 1 Chron 27:25 is the middle of the book. The division into two books originated with the Alexandrian translators (LXX), and has been transmitted by the Latin translation of Hieronymus (Vulgata) not only to all the later translations of the Bible, but also, along with the division into chapters, into our versions of the Hebrew Bible. The first book closes, 1 Chron 29:29f., with the end of the reign of David, which formed a fitting epoch for the division of the work into two books. The Hebrew name of this book in our Bible, by which it was known even by Hieronymus, is hymym dbry , verba, or more correctly res gestae dierum, events of the days, before which ceper is to be supplied (cf. e.g., 1 Kings 14:19,29; 15:7,23).

Its full title therefore is, Book of the Events of the Time (Zeitereignisse), corresponding to the annalistic work so often quoted in our canonical books of Kings and Chronicles, the Book of the Events of the Time (Chronicle) of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Instead of this the LXX have chosen the name Baraleipo'mena, in order to mark more exactly the relation of our work to the earlier historical books of the Old Testament, as containing much historical information which is not to be found in them.

But the name is not used in the sense of supplementa-"fragments of other historical works," as Movers, die Bibl. Chron. S. 95, interprets it-but in the signification "praetermissa;" because, according to the explanation in the Synopsis script. sacr. in Athanasii Opera, ii. p. 84, paraleifthe'nta polla' en tai's basileiai's (i.e., in the books of Samuel and Kings) perie'chetai en tou'tois, "many things passed over in the Kings are contained in these."

Likewise Isidorus, lib. vi. Origin. c. i. p. 45: Paralipomenon graece dicitur, quod praetermissorum vel reliquorum nos dicere possumus, quia ea quae in lege vel in Regum libris vel omissa vel non plene relata sunt, in isto summatim et breviter explicantur. This interpretation of the word paraleipo'mena is confirmed by Hieronymus, who, in his Epist. ad Paulin. (Opp. ti. i. ed. Vallars, p. 279), says: Paralipomenon liber, id est instrumenti veteris epitome tantus et talis est, ut absque illo, si quis scientiam scripturarum sibi voluerit arrogare, seipsum irrideat; per singula quippe nomina juncturasque verborum et praetermissae in Regum libris tanguntur historiae et innumerabiles explicantur Evangelii quaestones. He himself, however, suggested the name Chronicon, in order more clearly to characterize both the contents of the work and at the same its relation to the historical books from Gen 1 to 2 Kings; as he says in Prolog. galeat.: hymym dbry , i.e., verba dierum, quod significantius chronicon totius divinae historiae possumus appellare, qui liber apud nos Paralipomenon primus et secundus inscribitur. Through Hieronymus the name Chronicles came into use, and became the prevailing title.

Contents.-The Chronicles begin with genealogical registers of primeval times, and of the tribes of Israel (1 Chron 1-9); then follow the history of the reign of King David (ch. 10-29) and of King Solomon (2 Chron 1-9); the narrative of the revolt of the ten tribes from the kingdom of the house of David (ch. 10); the history of the kingdom of Judah from Rehoboam to the ruin of the kingdom, its inhabitants being led away into exile to Babylon (ch. 11-36:21); and at the close we find the edict of Cyrus, which allowed the Jews to return into their country (36:22-23). Each of the two books, therefore, falls into two, and the whole work into four divisions. If we examine these divisions more minutely, six groups can be without difficulty recognised in the genealogical part (1 Chron 1-9). These are: (1) The families of primeval and ancient times, from Adam to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and his sons Edom and Israel, together with the posterity of Edom (ch. 1); (2) the sons of Israel and the families of Judah, with the sons and posterity of David (2-4:23); (3) the families of the tribe of Simeon, whose inheritance lay within the tribal domain of Judah, and those of the trans-Jordanic tribes Reuben and Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh (1 Chron 4:24-5:26); (4) the families of Levi, or of the priests and Levites, with an account of the dwelling-places assigned to them (5:27-6:66); (5) the families of the remaining tribes, viz., Issachar, Benjamin, Naphtali, the half-tribe of Manasseh, Ephraim, and Asher (only Dan and Zebulun being omitted), with the genealogy of the house of Saul (7, 8); and (6) a register of the former inhabitants of Jerusalem (9:1-34), and a second enumeration of the family of Saul, preparing us for the transition to the history of the kingdom of Israel (9:35-44). The history of David's kingship which follows is introduced by an account of the ruin of Saul and his house (ch. 10), and then the narrative falls into two sections. (1) In the first we have David's election to be king over all Israel, and the taking of the Jebusite fort in Jerusalem, which was built upon Mount Zion (1 Chron 11:1-9); then a list of David's heroes, and the valiant men out of all the tribes who made him king (11:10-12:40); the removal of the ark to Jerusalem, the founding of his house, and the establishment of the Levitical worship before the ark in Zion (13-16); David's design to build a temple to the Lord (17); then his wars (18-20); the numbering of the people, the pestilence which followed, and the fixing of the place for the future temple (21). (2) In the second section are related David's preparations for the building of the temple (22); the numbering of the Levites, and the arrangement of their service (23-26); the arrangement of the military service (27); David's surrender of the kingdom to his son, and the close of his life (28 and 29).

The history of the reign of Solomon begins with his solemn sacrifice at Gibeon, and some remarks on his wealth (2 Chron 1); then follows the building of the temple, with the consecration of the completed holy place (ch. 2-7). To these are added short aphoristic accounts of the cities which Solomon built, the statute labour which he exacted, the arrangement of the public worship, the voyage to Ophir, the visit of the queen of Sheba, and of the might and glory of his kingdom, closing with remarks on the length of his reign, and an account of his death (8-9). The history of the kingdom of Judah beings with the narrative of the revolt of the ten tribes from Rehoboam (ch. 10), and then in ch. 11-36 it flows on according to the succession of the kings of Judah from Rehoboam to Zedekiah, the reigns of the individual kings forming the sections of the narrative.

Plan and Aim.-From this general sketch of the contents of our history, it will be already apparent that the author had not in view a general history of the covenant people from the time of David to the Babylonian exile, but purposed only to give an outline of the history of the kingship of David and his successors, Solomon and the kings of the kingdom of Judah to its fall. If, whoever, in order to define more clearly the plan and purpose of the historical parts of our book in the first place, we compare them with the representation given us of the history of Israel in those times in the books of Samuel and Kings, we can see that the chronicler has passed over much of the history. (a) He has omitted, in the history of David, not only his seven years' reign at Hebron over the tribe of Judah, and his conduct to the fallen King Saul and to his house, especially towards Ishbosheth, Saul's son, who had been set up as rival king by Abner (2 Sam 1-4 and 9), but in general has passed over all the events referring to and connected with David's family relations.

He makes no mention, for instance, of the scene between David and Michal (2 Sam 6:20-23); the adultery with Bathsheba, with its immediate and more distant results (2 Sam 11:2-12); Amnon's outrage upon Tamar, the slaying of Amnon by Absalom and his flight to the king of Geshur, his return to Jerusalem, his rising against David, with its issues, and the tumult of Sheba (2 Sam 13-20); and, finally, also omits the thanksgiving psalm and the last words of David (2 Sam 22:1-23:7). Then (b) in the history of Solomon there have been left unrecorded the attempt of Adonijah to usurp the throne, with the anointing of Solomon at Gihon, which it brought about; David's last command in reference to Joab and Shimei; the punishment of these men and of Adonijah; Solomon's marriage with Pharaoh's daughter (1 Kings 1:1-3:3); his wise judgment, the catalogue of his officials, the description of his royal magnificence and glory, and of his wisdom (1 Kings 3:16-5:14); the building of the royal palace (1 Kings 7:1-12); and Solomon's polygamy and idolatry, with their immediate results (1 Kings 11:1-40).

Finally, (c) there is no reference to the history of the kingdom of Israel founded by Jeroboam, or to the lives of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, which are related in such detail in the books of Kings, while mention is made of the kings of the kingdom of the ten tribes only in so far as they came into hostile struggle or friendly union with the kingdom of Judah.

But, in compensation for these omissions, the author of the Chronicle has brought together in his work a considerable number of facts and events which are omitted in the books of Samuel and the Kings.

For example, in the history of David, he gives us the list of the valiant men out of all the tribes who, partly before and partly after the death of Saul, went over to David to help him in his struggle with Saul and his house, and to bring the royal honour to him (1 Chron 12); the detailed account of the participation of the Levites in the transfer of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem, and of the arrangements made by David for worship around this sanctuary (ch. 15 and 16); and the whole section concerning David's preparations for the building of the temple, his arrangements for public worship, the regulation of the army, and his last commands (ch. 22-29).

Further, the history of the kingdom of Judah from Rehoboam to Joram is narrated throughout at greater length than in the books of Kings, and is considerably supplemented by detailed accounts, not only of the work of the prophets in Judah, of Shemaiah under Rehoboam (2 Chron 12:5-8), of Azariah and Hanani under Asa (15:1-8; 16:7-9), of Jehu son of Hanani, Jehaziel, and Ebenezer son of Dodava, under Jehoshaphat (19:1-3; 20:14- 20 and 37), and concerning Elijah's letter under Joram (21:12-15); but also of the efforts of Rehoboam (11:5-17), Asa (14:5-7), and Jehoshaphat (17:2,12-19) to fortify the kingdom of Asa to raise and vivify the Jahveworship (15:9-15), of Jehoshaphat to purify the administration of justice and increase the knowledge of the law (17:7-9 and 19:5-11), of the wars of Abijah against Jeroboam, and his victories (13:3-20), of Asa's war against the Cushite Zerah (14:8-14), of Jehoshaphat's conquest of the Ammonites and Moabites (20:1-30), and, finally, also of the family relations of Rehoboam (11:18-22), the wives and children of Abijah (13:21), and Joram's brothers and his sickness (21:2-4 and 18f.).

Of the succeeding kings also various undertakings are reported which are not found in the books of Kings. In this way we are informed of Joash's defection from the Lord, and his fall into idolatry after the death of the high priest Jehoiada (2 Chron 24:15-22); how Amaziah increased his military power (25:5-10), and worshipped idols (25:14-16); of Uzziah's victorious wars against the Philistines and Arabs, and his fortress-building, etc. (26:6-15); of Jotham's fortress-building, and his victory over the Ammonites (27:4-6); of the increase of Hezekiah's riches (27-30); of Manasseh's capture and removal to Babylon, and his return out of captivity (11-17). But the history of Hezekiah and Josiah more especially is rendered more complete by special accounts of reforms in worship, and of celebrations of the passover (29:3-31,21, and 2-15); while we have only summary notices of the godless conduct of Ahaz (ch. 28) and Manasseh (3-10), of the campaign of Sennacherib against Jerusalem and Judah, of Hezekiah's sickness and the reception of the Babylonian embassy in Jerusalem (ch. 32, cf. 2 Kings 28:13-20,19); as also of the reigns of the last kings, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. From all this, it is clear that the author of the Chronicle, as Bertheau expresses it, "has turned his attention to those times especially in which Israel's religion had showed itself to be a power dominating the people and their leaders, and bringing them prosperity; and to those men who had endeavoured to give a more enduring form to the arrangements for the service of God, and to restore the true worship of Jahve; and to those events in the history of the worship so intimately bound up with Jerusalem, which had important bearings."

This purpose appears much more clearly when we take into consideration the narratives which are common to the Chronicle and the books of Samuel and Kings, and observe the difference which is perceptible in the mode of conception and representation in those parallel sections. For our present purpose, however, those narratives in which the chronicler supplements and completes the accounts given in the books of Samuel and Kings by more exact and detailed information, or shortens them by the omission of unimportant details, come less into consideration. (Note: Additions are to be found, e.g., in the list of David's heroes, Chr. 12:42-47; in the history of the building and consecration of Solomon's temple; in the enumeration of the candlesticks, tables, and courts,2 Chron 4:6-9; in the notice of the copper platform on which Solomon kneeled at prayer, 6:12-13; and of the fire which fell from heaven upon the burnt-offering, 7:1ff. Also in the histories of the wars they are met with, 1 Chron 11:6,8,23, cf. 2 Sam 5:8-9; 23:21; Chron 18:8,12, cf. 2 Sam 8:8,13, etc. More may be found in my Handbook of Introd. 139, 5. Abridgments by the rejection of unimportant details are very frequent; e.g., omission of the Jebusites' mockery of David's attack on their fortress, 1 Chron 11:5-6, cf. Sam 5:6,8; of the details of the storming of Rabbah,1 Chron 20:1-2, cf. 2 Sam 12:27-29; and of many more, vide my Handbook of Introduction, 139, 8.)

For both additions and abridgments show only that the chronicler has not drawn his information from the canonical books of Samuel and Kings, but from other more circumstantial original documents which he had at his command, and has used these sources independently. Much more important for a knowledge of the plan of the Chronicle are the variations in the parallel places between it and the other narrative; for in them the point of view from which the chronicler regarded, and has described, the events clearly appears. In the number of such passages is to be reckoned the narrative of the transfer of the ark (1 Chron 13 and 15, cf. 2 Sam 6), where the chronicler presents the fact in its religious import as the beginning of the restoration of the worship of Jahve according to the law, which had fallen into decay; while the author of the books of Samuel describes it only in its political import, in its bearing on the Davidic kingship.

Of this character also is the narrative of the raising of Joash to the throne (2 Chron 23, cf. 2 Kings 11), where the share of the Levites in the completion of the work begun by the high priest Jehoiada is prominently brought forward, while in Kings it is not expressly mentioned. The whole account also of the reign of Hezekiah, as well as other passages, belong to this category. Now from these and other descriptions of the part the Levites played in events, and the share they took in assisting the efforts of the pious kings to revivify and maintain the temple worship, the conclusion has been rightly drawn that the chronicler describes with special interest the fostering of the Levitic worship according to the precepts of the law of Moses, and hold it up to his contemporaries for earnest imitation; yet this has been too often done in such a way as to cause this one element in the plans of the Chronicle to be looked upon as its main object, which has led to a very onesided conception of the character of the book.

The chronicler does not desire to bring honour to the Levites and to the temple worship: his object is rather to draw from the history of the kingship in Israel a proof that faithful adherence to the covenant which the Lord had made with Israel brings happiness and blessing; the forsaking of it, on the contrary, ensures ruin and a curse. But Israel could show its faithfulness to the covenant only by walking according to the ordinances of the law given by Moses, and in worshipping Jahve, the God of their fathers, in His holy place in that way which He had established by the ceremonial ordinances. The author of the Chronicle attaches importance to the Levitic worship only because the fidelity of Israel to the covenant manifested itself in the careful maintenance of it.

This point of view appears clearly in the selection and treatment of the material drawn by our historian from older histories and prophetic writings. His history begins with the death of Saul and the anointing of David to be king over the whole of Israel, and confines itself, after the division of the kingdom, to the history of the kingdom of Judah. In the time of the judges especially, the Levitic worship had fallen more and more into decay; and even Samuel had done nothing for it, or perhaps could do nothing, and the ark remained during that whole period at a distance from the tabernacle. Still less was done under Saul for the restoration of the worship in the tabernacle; for "Saul died," as we read in 1 Chron 10:13f., "for his transgression which he had transgressed against the Lord;...and because he inquired not of the Lord, therefore He slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse." After the death of Saul the elders of all Israel came to David with the confession, "Jahve thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel; and thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel" (1 Chron 11:2).

David's first care, after he had as king over all Israel conquered the Jebusite hold on Mount Zion, and made Jerusalem the capital of the kingdom, was to bring the ark from its obscurity into the city of David, and to establish the sacrificial worship according to the law near that sanctuary (1 Chr. 13:15-16). Shortly afterwards he formed the resolution of building for the Lord a permanent house (a temple), that He might dwell among His people, for which he received from the Lord the promise of the establishment of his kingdom for ever, although the execution of his design was denied to him, and was committed to his son (ch. 17). Only after all this has been related do we find narratives of David's wars and his victories over all hostile peoples (ch. 18-20), of the numbering of the people, and the pestilence, which, in consequence of the repentant resignation of David to the will of the Lord, gave occasion to the determination of the place for the erection of the temple (ch. 21).

The second section of the history of the Davidic kingship contains the preparations for the building of the temple, and the laying down of more permanent regulations for the ordering of the worship; and that which David had prepared for, and so earnestly impressed upon his son Solomon at the transfer of the crown, Solomon carried out. Immediately after the throne had been secured to him, he took in hand the building of the temple; and the account of this work fills the greater part of the history of his reign, while the description of his kingly power and splendour and wisdom, and of all the other undertakings which he carried out, is of the shortest. When ten tribes revolted from the house of David after his death, Rehoboam's design of bringing the rebellious people again under his dominion by force of arms was checked by the prophet Shemaiah with the words, "Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren, for this thing is done of me" (2 Chron 11:4).

But in their revolt from the house of David, which Jeroboam sought to perpetuate by the establishment of an idolatrous national worship, Israel of the ten tribes had departed from the covenant communion with Jahve; and on this ground, and on this account, the history of that kingdom is no further noticed by the chronicler. The priests and Levites came out of the whole Israelite dominion to Judah and Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his sons expelled them from the priesthood. After them, from all the tribes of Israel came those who gave their hearts to seek Jahve the God of Israel to Jerusalem to sacrifice to Jahve the God of their fathers (2 Chron 11:13- 16), for "Jerusalem is the city which Jahve has chosen out of all the tribes of Israel to put His name there" (12:13). The priests, Levites, and pious people who went over from Israel made the kingdom of Judah strong, and confirmed Rehoboam's power, for they walked in the ways of David and Solomon (1 Chron 11:17).

But when the kingdom of Rehoboam had been firmly established, he forsook the law of Jahve, and all Israel with him (1 Chron 12:1). Then the Egyptian king Shishak came up against Jerusalem, "because they had transgressed against the Lord" (12:2). The prophet Shemaiah proclaimed the word of the Lord: "Ye have forsaken me, and therefore have I also left you in the hand of Shishak" (12:5). Yet when Rehoboam and the princes of Israel humbled themselves, the anger of the Lord turned from him, that He would not destroy him altogether (12:6,12). King Abijah reproaches Jeroboam in his speech with his defection from Jahve, and concludes with the words, "O children of Israel, fight not ye against the Lord God of your fathers, for ye shall not prosper" (13:12); and when the men of Judah cried unto the Lord in the battle, and the priests blew the trumpets, then did God smite Jeroboam and all Israel (13:15). "Thus the children of Israel were brought under at that time, and the children of Judah prevailed, because they relied upon the Lord God of their fathers" (13:18). King Asa commanded his subjects to seek Jahve the God of their fathers, and to do the law and the commandments (1 Chron 14:3). In the war against the Cushites, he cried unto Jahve his God, "Help us, for we rest on Thee;" and Jahve smote the Cushites before Judah (14:10). After this victory Asa and Judah sacrificed unto the Lord of their spoil, and entered into a covenant to seek Jahve the God of their fathers with all their heart, and with all their soul. And the Lord was found of them, and the Lord gave them rest round about (15:11ff.). But when Asa afterwards, in the war against Baasha of Israel, made an alliance with the Syrian king Benhadad, the prophet Hanani censured this act in the words, "Because thou hast relied on the king of Syria, and hast not relied on Jahve thy God, therefore has the host of the king of Syria escaped out of thy hand.... Herein thou hast done foolishly," etc. (16:7-9). Jehoshaphat became mighty against Israel, and Jahve was with him; for he walked in the ways of his father David, and sought not unto the Baals, but sought the God of his father, and walked in His commandments, and not after the doings of Israel. And Jahve established his kingdom in his hand, and he attained to riches and great splendour (17:1-5).

After this fashion does the chronicler show how God blessed the reigns and prospered all the undertakings of all the kings of Judah who sought the Lord and walked in His commandments; but at the same time also, how every defection from the Lord brought with it misfortune and chastisement. Under Joram of Judah, Edom and Libnah freed themselves from the supremacy of Judah, "because Joram had forsaken Jahve the God of his fathers" (1 Chron 21:10). Because Joram had walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and had seduced the inhabitants of Jerusalem to whoredom (i.e., idolatry), and had slain his brothers, God punished him in the invasion of Judah by the Philistines and Arabs, who stormed Jerusalem, took away with them all the furniture of the royal palace, and took captive his sons and wives, while He smote him besides with incurable disease (21:11ff., 16-18).

Because of the visit which Ahaziah made to Joram of Israel, when he lay sick of his wound at Jezreel, the judgment was (1 Chron 22:7) pronounced: "The destruction of Ahaziah was of God by his coming to Joram." When Amaziah, after his victory over the Edomites, brought back the gods of Seir and set them up for himself as gods, before whom he worshipped, the anger of Jahve was kindled against him. In spite of the warning of the prophets, he sought a quarrel with King Joash of Israel, who likewise advised him to abandon his design. "But Amaziah would not hear; for it was of God, that He might deliver them over, because they had sought the gods of Edom" (25:20). With this compare v. 27: "After the time that Amaziah turned away from the following Jahve, they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem." Of Uzziah it is said (26:5), so long as he sought the Lord, God made him to prosper, so that he conquered his enemies and became very mighty. But when he was strong his heart was lifted up, so that he transgressed against Jahve his God, by forcing his way into the temple to offer incense; and for this he was smitten with leprosy.

Of Jotham it is said, in 27:6, "He became mighty, because he established his ways before Jahve his God."

From these and similar passages, which might easily be multiplied, we clearly see that the chronicler had in view not only the Levitic worship, but also and mainly the attitude of the people and their princes to the Lord and to His law; and that it is from this point of view that he has regarded and written the history of his people before the exile. But it is also not less clear, from the quotations we have made, in so far as they contain practical remarks of the historian, that it was his purpose to hold up to his contemporaries as a mirror the history of the past, in which they might see the consequences of their own conduct towards the God of their fathers.

He does not wish, as the author of the books of Kings does, to narrate the events and facts objectively, according to the course of history; but he connects the facts and events with the conduct of the kings and people towards the Lord, and strives to put the historical facts in such a light as to teach that God rewards fidelity to His covenant with happiness and blessing, and avenges faithless defection from it with punitive judgments.

Owing to this peculiarity, the historical narrative acquires a hortative character, which gives occasion for the employment of a highly rhetorical style. The hortative-rhetorical character impressed upon his narrative shows itself not only in many of the speeches of the actors in the history which are interwoven with it, but also in many of the historical parts. For example, the account given in 2 Chron 21:16 of the punitive judgments which broke in upon Joram for his wickedness is rhetorically arranged, so that the judgments correspond to the threatenings contained in the letter of Elijah, vv. 12-15. But this may be much more plainly seen in the description of the impious conduct of King Ahaz, and of the punishments which were inflicted upon him and the kingdom of Judah (ch. 28); as also in the descriptions of the crime of Manasseh (2 Chron 33:3-13; cf. especially vv. 7 and 8), and of the reign of Zedekiah, and the ruin of the kingdom of Judah (2 Chron 36:12-21).

Now the greater part of the differences between the chronicler's account and the parallel narrative in the books of Samuel and Kings, together with the omission of unimportant circumstances, and the careful manner in which the descriptions of the arrangements for worship and the celebration of feasts are wrought out, can be accounted for by this hortatory tendency so manifest in his writings, and by his subjective, reflective manner of regarding history. For all these peculiarities clearly have it for their object to raise in the souls of the readers pleasure and delight in the splendid worship of the Lord, and to confirm their hearts in fidelity to the Lord and to His law.

With this plan and object, the first part of our history (1 Chron 1-9), which contains genealogies, with geographical sketches and isolated historical remarks, is in perfect harmony. The genealogies are intended to exhibit, on the one hand, the connection of the people of Israel with the whole human race; on the other, the descent and genealogical ramifications of the tribes and families of Israel, with the extent to which they had spread themselves abroad in the land received as a heritage from the Lord.

In both of these respects they are the necessary foundation for the following history of the chosen people, which the author designed to trace from the time of the foundation of the promised kingdom till the people were driven away into exile because of their revolt from their God. And it is not to be considered as a result of the custom prevalent among the later Arabian historians, of beginning their histories and chronicles ab ovo with Adam, that our author goes back in this introduction to Adam and the beginnings of the human race; for not only is this custom far too modern to allow of any inference being drawn from it with reference to the Chronicle, but it has itself originated, beyond a doubt, in an imitation of our history.

The reason for going back to the beginnings of the human race is to be sought in the importance for the history of the world of the people of Israel, whose progenitor Abraham had been chosen and separated from all the peoples of the earth by God, that his posterity might become a blessing to all the families of the earth. But in order to see more perfectly the plan and object of the historian in his selection and treatment of the historical material at his command, we must still keep in view the age in which he lived, and for which he wrote. In respect to this, so much in general is admitted, viz., that the Chronicle was composed after the Babylonian exile. With their release from exile, and their return into the land of their fathers, Israel did not receive again its former political importance.

That part of the nation which had returned remained under Persian supremacy, and was ruled by Persian governors; and the descendants of the royal race of David remained subject to this governor, or at least to the kings of Persia. They were only allowed to restore the temple, and to arrange the divine service according to the precepts of the Mosaic law; and in this they were favoured by Cyrus and his successors. In such circumstances, the efforts and struggles of the returned Jews must have been mainly directed to the reestablishment and permanent ordering of the worship, in order to maintain communion with the Lord their God, and by that means to prove their fidelity to the God of their fathers, so that the Lord might fulfil His covenant promises to them, and complete the restoration of Judah and Jerusalem. By this fact, therefore, may we account for the setting forth in our history of the religious and ecclesiastical side of the life of the Israelitish community in such relief, and for the author's supposed "fondness" for the Levitic worship. If the author of the Chronicle wished to strengthen his contemporaries in their fidelity to Jahve, and to encourage them to fulfil their covenant duties by a description of the earlier history of the covenant people, he could not hope to accomplish his purpose more effectively than by so presenting the history as to bring accurately before them the ordinances and arrangements of the worship, the blessings of fidelity to the covenant, and the fatal fruits of defection from the Lord.

The chronicler's supposed predilection for genealogical lists arose also from the circumstances of his time. From Ezra 2:60ff. we learn that some of the sons of priests who returned with Zerubbabel sought their family registers, but could not find them, and were consequently removed from the priesthood; besides this, the inheritance of the land was bound up with the families of Israel. On this account the family registers had, for those who had returned from the exile, an increased importance, as the means of again obtaining possession of the heritage of their fathers; and perhaps it was the value thus given to the genealogical lists which induced the author of the Chronicle to include in his book all the old registers of this sort which had been received from antiquity. 2. Age and Author of the Chronicles.

The Chronicle cannot have been composed before the time of Ezra, for it closes with the intelligence that Cyrus, by an edict in the first year of his reign, allowed the Jews to return to their country (2 Chron 36:22f.), and it brings down the genealogical tree of Zerubbabel to his grandchildren (1 Chron 3:19-21). The opinion brought into acceptance by de Wette and Ewald, that the genealogy (1 Chron 3:19-24) enumerates six or seven other generations after Zerubbabel, and so reaches down to the times of Alexander the Great or yet later, is founded on the undemonstrable assumption that the twenty-one names which in this passage (v. 21b) follow rpyh bny are the names of direct descendants of Zerubbabel. But no exegetical justification can be found for this assumption; since the list of names, "the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah," etc. (vv. 21b-24), is connected neither in form nor in subject-matter with the grandsons of Zerubbabel, who have been already enumerated, but forms a genealogical fragment, the connection of which with Zerubbabel's grandchildren is merely asserted, but can neither be proved nor even rendered probable. (Vide the commentary on these verses.) Other grounds for the acceptance of so late a date for the composition of the Chronicle are entirely wanting; for the orthography and language of the book point only in general to the post-exilic age, and the mention of the Daric, a Persian coin, in 1 Chron 29:7, does not bring us further down than the period of the Persian rule over Judaea. On the other hand, the use of the name biyraah (1 Chron 29:1,19) for the temple can scarcely be reconciled with the composition of the book in the Macedonian or even the Seleucidian age, since an author who lived after Nehemiah, when Jerusalem, like other Persian cities, had received in the fortress built by him (Neh 2:8; 7:2), and afterwards called ba'ris and Arx Antonia, its own biyraah , would scarcely have given this name to the temple.

In reference to the question of the authorship of our book, the matter which most demands consideration is the identity of the end of the Chronicle with the beginning of the book of Ezra. The Chronicle closes with the edict of Cyrus which summons the Jews to return to Jerusalem to build the temple; the book of Ezra begins with this same edict, but gives it more completely than the Chronicle, which stops somewhat abruptly with the word w|yaa`al , "and let him go up," although in this wy`l everything is contained that we find in the remaining part of the edict communicated in the book of Ezra. From this relation of the Chronicle to the book of Ezra, many Rabbins, Fathers of the church, and older exegetes, have drawn the conclusion that Ezra is also the author of the Chronicle.

But of course it is not a very strong proof, since it can be accounted for on the supposition that the author of the book of Ezra has taken over the conclusion of the Chronicle into his work, and set it at the commencement so as to attach his book to the Chronicle as a continuation.

In support of this supposition, moreover, the further fact may be adduced, that it was just as important for the Chronicle to communicate the terms of Cyrus' edict as it was for the book of Ezra. It was a fitting conclusion of the former, to show that the destruction of Jerusalem and the leading away of the inhabitants of Judah to Babylon, was not the final destiny of Judah and Jerusalem, but that, after the dark night of exile, the day of the restoration of the people of God had dawned under Cyrus; and for the latter it was an indispensable foundation and point of departure for the history of the new immigration of the exiles into Jerusalem and Judah. Yet it still remains more probable that one author produced both writings, yet not as a single book, which has been divided at some later time by another hand. For no reason can be perceived for any such later division, especially such a division as would make it necessary to repeat the edict of Cyrus. (Note: What Bertheau (p. xxi.) says in this connection (following Ewald, Gesch. des V. Isr. i. 8. S. 264, der 2 Aufl.), viz., that "perhaps at first only that part of the great historical work which contains the history of the new community itself, to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the history of these its two heroes, was added to the books of the Old Testament, because it seemed unnecessary to add our present Chronicle, on account of its agreement in great part with the contents of the books of Samuel and Kings," is a supposition which merely evades giving a reason for the division of the work into two, by holding the division to have been made before the book came into the canon. But unless the division had been made before, no one would ever have thought of considering the first half of this book, i.e., our present Chronicle, unworthy of a place in the canon, since it contains, in great part, new information not found in the books of Samuel and Kings, and supplements in a variety of ways even the narratives which are contained in these books. And even supposing that the Chronicle was received into the canon as a supplement, after the books of Ezra and Nehemiah had already received a definite place in it, the verses 2 Chr. 37:22f. could scarcely have been added to the Chronicle from the book of Ezra, to call attention to the fact that the Chronicle had received an unsuitable place in the canon, as it ought to have stood before the book of Ezra.)

The introduction of this edict with the words, "And it came to pass in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished," connects it so closely with the end of the account of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the carrying away into Babylon, contained in the words, "And they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfil the word of the Lord spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah,... to fulfil the seventy years" (v. 20f.), that it cannot be separated from what precedes. Rather it is clear, that the author who wrote verses 20 and 21, representing the seventy years' exile as the fulfilment of the prophecy of Jeremiah, must be the same who mentions the edict of Cyrus, and sets it forth in its connection with the utterances of the same prophet. This connecting of the edict with the prophecy gives us an irrefragable proof that the verses which contain the edict form an integral part of the Chronicle. But, at the same time, the way in which the edict is broken off in the Chronicle with w|yaa`al , makes it likely that the author of the Chronicle did not give the contents of the edict in their entirety, only because he intended to treat further of the edict, and the fulfilment of it by the return of the Jews from Babylon, in a second work. A later editor would certainly have given the entire edict in both writings (the Chronicle and the book of Ezra), and would, moreover, hardly have altered b|piy (Chron.) into mipiy (Ezra), and `imow 'elohaayw y|haaowh into `imow 'elohaayw y|hiy .

The remaining grounds which are usually urged for the original unity of the two writings, prove nothing more than the possibility or probability that both originated with one author; certainly they do not prove that they originally formed one work. The long list of phenomena in Bertheau's Commentary, pp. xvi.-xx., by which a certainty is supposed to be arrived at that the Chronicle and Ezra originally was one great historical work, compiled from various sources, greatly requires the help of critical bias. 1. "The predilection of the author for genealogical lists, for detailed descriptions of great feasts, which occurred at the most various times, for exact representations of the arrangement of the public worship, and the business of the Levites and priests, which their classifications and ranks," cannot be proved to exist in the book of Ezra.

That book contains only one very much abridged genealogy, that of Ezra (Ezra 7:1-5); only two lists-those, namely, of the families who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Ezra (ch. 2 and 8); only one account of the celebration of a feast, the by no means detailed description of the consecration of the temple (1 Chron 6:16); short remarks on the building of the altar, the celebration of the feast of tabernacles, and the laying of the foundation-stone of the temple, in ch. 3; and it contains nothing whatever as to the divisions and ranks of the priests and Levites.

That in these lists and descriptions some expressions should recur, is to be expected from the nature of the case. Yet all that is common to both books is the word hit|yachees , the use of kamish|paaT in the signification, "according to the Mosaic law" (1 Chron 23:31; 2 Chron 35:13; Ezra 3:4, and Neh 8:18), and the liturgical formulae layhaaowh howduw , which occurs also in Isa 12:4 and Ps 33:2, and uwl|haleel l|howdowt with the addition, "Jahve is God, and His mercy endureth for ever" (1 Chron 16:34,41; 2 Chron 7:6; Ezra 3:11).

The other expressions enumerated by Bertheau are met with also in other writings: b|sheemowt niq|buw in Num 1:17; beeyt-'aabowt raa'sheey and 'aabowt raa'sheey , Ex 6:14ff.; and the formula (yhwh b|towrat ) batowraah kakaatuwb or l|kaal-hakaatuwb (1 Chron 16:40; 2 Chron 35:12,26; Ezra 3:2,4) is just as common in other writings: cf. Josh 1:8; 8:31,34; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 22:13; 23:21.

Bertheau further remarks: "In those sections in which the regulation of the public worship, the duties, classification, and offices of the priests and Levites are spoken of, the author seizes every opportunity to tell of the musicians and doorkeepers, their duties at the celebration of the great festivals, and their classification. He speaks of the musicians, 1 Chron 6:16ff., 9:14-16,33; 15:16-22,27f., 16:4-42; 23:5,25; 2 Chron 5:12f., Chron 7:6; 8:14f., 20:19, 21; 23:13,18; 29:25-28,30; 30:21f., 31:2,11-18; 34:12; 35:15; Ezra 3:10f.; Neh 11:17; 12:8,24,27-29,45-47; 13:5. The doorkeepers are mentioned nearly as often, and not seldom in company with the singers: 1 Chron 9:17-29; 15:18,23-24; 16:38; 23:5; 26:1,12-19; Chron 8:14; 23:4,19; 31:14; 34:13; 35:15; Ezra 2:42,70; 7:7; 10:24; Neh 7:1,45; 10:29; 11:19; 12:25,45,47; 13:5.

Now if these passages be compared, not only are the same expressions met with (e.g., m|tsil|tayim only in Chron., Ezra, and Neh.; ham|shoreer and ham|shor|riym likewise only in these books, but here very frequently, some twenty-eight times), and also very often in different places the same names (cf. 1 Chron 9:17 with Neh 12:25); but everywhere also we can easily trace the same view as to the importance of the musicians and doorkeepers for the public worship, and see that all information respecting them rests upon a very well-defined view of their duties and their position."

But does it follow from this "well-defined view" of the business of the musicians and doorkeepers, that the Chronicle, Ezra, and Nehemiah form a single book? Is this view an idea peculiar to the author of this book? In all the historical books of the Old Testament, from Exodus and Leviticus to Nehemiah, we find the idea that the laying of the sacrifice upon the altar is the business of the priest; but does it follow from that, that all those books were written by one man? But besides this, the representation given by Bertheau is very one-sided. The fact is, that in the Chronicle, and in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, mention is made of the priests just as often as of the Levitical musicians, and oftener than the doorkeepers are spoken of, as will be seen from the proofs brought forward in the following remarks; nor can any trace be discovered of a "fondness" on the part of the chronicler for the musicians and porters. They are mentioned only when the subject demanded that they should be mentioned. 2. As to the language.-Bertheau himself admits, after the enumeration of a long list of linguistic peculiarities of the Chronicle and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, that all these phenomena are to be met with separately in other books of the Old Testament, especially the later ones; only their frequent use can be set down as the linguistic peculiarity of one author.

But does the mere numbering of the places where a word or a grammatical construction occurs in this or that book really serve as a valid proof for the unity of the authorship? When, for example, the form bizaah , Chr. 14:13; 28:14, Ezra 9:7, Neh. 3:36, occurs elsewhere only in Esther and Daniel, or qibeel in 1 Chron 12:18; 21:11; 2 Chron 29:16,22, and Ezra 8:30, is elsewhere found only in Proverbs once, in Job once, and thrice in Esther, does it follow that the Chronicle and the book of Ezra are the work of one author?

The greater number of the linguistic phenomena enumerated by Bertheau, such as the use of haa'elohiym for yhwh ; the frequent use of l|, partly before the infinitive to express shall or must, partly for subordinating or introducing a word; the multiplication of prepositionse. g., in l|'eeyn `ad , 2 Chron 36:16; lim|'od `ad, 2 Chron 16:14; l|ma`|laah `ad , 2 Chron 16:12; 17:12; 36:8-are characteristics not arising from a peculiar use of language by our chronicler, but belonging to the later or post-exilic Hebrew in general.

The only words and phrases which are characteristic of and common to the Chronicle and the book of Ezra are: k|powr (bowl), 1 Chron 28:17; Ezra 1:10; 8:27; the infinitive Hophal huwcad, used of the foundation of the temple,2 Chron 3:3; Ezra 3:11; p|lugaah , of the divisions of the Levites,2 Chron 35:5 and Ezra 6:18; hit|nadeeb , of offerings, 1 Chron 29:5-6,9,14,17; Ezra 1:6; 2:68; 3:5; l|meeraachowq `ad (with three prepositions), 2 Chron 26:15; Ezra 3:13; and lid|rosh l|baabow heekiyn , 2 Chron 12:14; 19:3; 30:19, and Ezra 7:10. These few words and constructions would per se not prove much; but in connection with the fact that neither in the language nor in the ideas are any considerable differences or variations to be observed, they may serve to strengthen the probability, arising from the relation of the end of the Chronicle to the beginning of the book of Ezra, that both writings were composed by the priest and scribe Ezra. (Note: The opinion first propounded by Ewald, and adopted by Bertheau, Dillmann (art. "Chronik" in Herzog's Realencykl.), and others, that "the author belonged to the guild of musicians settled at the temple in Jerusalem" (Gesch. des. V. Isr. i. p. 235), has no tenable ground for its support, and rests merely on the erroneous assumption that the author has not the same sympathy with the priests as he shows in speaking of the Levites, more especially of the signers and doorkeepers (Berth.). If this assertion were true, the author might have been just as well a Levitical doorkeeper as a musician. But it is quite erroneous, as may be seen on a comparison of the passage adduced supra, p. 386, from Bertheau's commentary. In all the passages in which the musicians and doorkeepers are mentioned the priests are also spoken of, and in such a way that to both priests and Levites that is ascribed which belonged to their respective offices: to the priests, the sacrificial service and the blowing of the trumpets; to the Levites, the external business of the temple, and the execution of the instrumental music and psalm-singing introduced by David. From this it is clear that there is not reason why the priests and scribe Ezra might not have composed the Chronicle. The passages supporting the assertion that where musicians and doorkeepers are spoken of the priests are also mentioned, are: 1 Chron 6:34ff., 9:10-13; 15:24; 16:6,39f., 23:2,13,28,32; 24:1-19; 2 Chron 5:7,11-14; 7:6; 8:14f., Chr 13:9-12; 17:8; 19:8,11; 20:28; 23:4,6,18; 26:17,20; 29:4,16,21- 24,34; 30:3,15,21,25,27; 31:2,17,19; 34:30; 35:2,8,10,14,18; Ezra 1:5; 2:61,70; 3:2,8,10-12; 6:16,18,20; 7:7,24; 8:15,24-30,33; Neh. 2:16; 3:1; 7:73; 8:13; 10:1-9,29,35,39f., 1 Chron 11:3,10ff., 12:1ff., 30, 35, 41, 44, 47, 13:30.) 3. The Sources of the Chronicles.

The genealogical list in ch. 1, which gives us the origin of the human race and of the nations, and that which contains the names of the sons of Jacob (1 Chron 2:1 and 2), are to be found in and have been without doubt extracted from Genesis, to be placed together here. For it is scarcely probable that genealogical lists belonging to primeval time and the early days of Israel should have been preserved till the post-exilic period. But all the genealogical registers which follow, together with the geographical and historical remarks interwoven with them (1 Chron 2:3-8:40), have not been derived from the older historical books of the Old Testament: for they contain for the most part merely the names of the originators of those genealogical lines, of the grandsons and some of the great-grandsons of Jacob, and of the ancestors, brothers, and sons of David; but nowhere do they contain the whole lines.

Moreover, in the parallel places the names often differ greatly, so that all the variations cannot be ascribed to errors of transcription. Compare the comparative table of these parallel places in my apolog. Versuch über die Chron. S. 159ff., and in the Handbook of Introduction, 139, 1. All these catalogues, together with that of the cities of the Levites (1 Chron 6:39- 66), have been derived from other, extra-biblical sources. But as Bertheau, S. xxxi., rightly remarks: "We cannot hold the lists to be the result of historical investigation on the part of the author of the Chronicle, in the sense of his having culled the individual names carefully either out of historical works or from traditions of the families, and then brought them into order: for in reference to Gad (1 Chron 5:12) we are referred to a genealogical register prepared in the time of Jotham king of Judah and Jeroboam king of Israel; while as to Issachar (1 Chron 7:2) the reference is to the numbering of the people which took place in the time of David; and it is incidentally (?) stated (1 Chron 9:1) that registers had been prepared of all Israelites (i.e., the northern tribes)."

Besides this, in 1 Chron 23:3,27, and 26:31, numberings of the Levites, and in 1 Chron 27:24 the numbering of the people undertaken by Joab at David's command, are mentioned. With regard to the latter, however, it is expressly stated that its results were not incorporated in the hayaamiym dib|reey , i.e., in the book of the chronicles of King David, while it is said that the results of the genealogical registration of the northern tribes of Israel were written in the book of the kings of Israel.

According to this, then, it might be thought that the author had taken his genealogical lists from the great historical work made use of by him, and often cited, in the history of the kings of Judah-"the national annals of Israel and Judah." But this can be accepted only with regard to the short lists of the tribes of the northern kingdom in ch. 5 and 7, which contain nothing further than the names of families and fathers'-houses, with a statement of the number of males in these fathers'-houses.

It is possible that these names and numbers were contained in the national annals; but it is not likely that these registers, which are of a purely genealogical nature, giving the descent of families or famous men in longer or shorter lines of ancestors, were received into the national annals (Reichsannalen), and it does not at all appear from the references to the annals that this was the case. These genealogical lists were most probably in the possession of the heads of the tribes and families and households, from whom the author of the Chronicle would appear to have collected all he could find, and preserved them from destruction by incorporating them in his work.

In the historical part (1 Chr. 10:-2 Chr. 36), at the death of almost every king, the author refers to writings in which the events and acts of his reign are described. Only in the case of Joram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, and the later kings Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, are such references omitted. The books which are thus named are: (1) For David's reign, Dibre of Samuel the seer, of the prophet Nathan, and of Gad the seer (1 Chron 29:29); (2) as to Solomon, the Dibre of the prophet Nathan, the prophecy (n|buw'at) of Abijah the Shilonite, and the visions (chazowt) of the seer Iddo against Jeroboam the son of Nebat (2 Chron 9:29); (3) for Rehoboam, Dibre of the prophet Shemaiah and the seer Iddo (2 Chron 13:22); (5) for Asa, the book of the kings of Judah and Israel (16:11); (6) as to Jehoshaphat, Dibre of Jehu the son of Hanani, which had been incorporated with the book of the kings of Israel (20:34); (7) for the reign of Joash, Midrash-Sepher of the kings (24:27); (8) for the reign of Amaziah, the book of the kings of Judah and Israel (25:26); (9) in reference to Uzziah, a writing (kaatab ) of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 26:22); (10) as to Jotham, the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (27:7); (11) for the reign of Ahaz, the book of the kings of Judah and Israel (28:26); (12) for Hezekiah, the vision (chazown ) of the prophet Isaiah, in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel (32:32); (13) as to Manasseh, Dibre of the kings of Israel, and Dibre of Hozai (33:18 and 19); (14) for the reign of Josiah, the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (35:27); and (15) for Jehoiakim, the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (36:8).

From this summary, it appears that two classes of writings, of historical and prophetic contents respectively, are quoted. The book of the kings of Judah and Israel (No. 5, 8, 11), the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (10, 14, 15), the histories (dib|reey ) of the kings of Israel (13), and the Midrash-book of kings (7), are all historical. The first three titles are, as is now generally admitted, only variations in the designation of one and the same work, whose complete title, "Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel" (or Israel and Judah), is here and there altered into "Book of the Events (or History) of the Kings of Israel," i.e., of the whole Israelitish people. This work contained the history of the kings of both kingdoms, and must have been essentially the same as to contents with the two annalistic writings cited in the canonical books of Kings: the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, and the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah. This conclusion is forced upon us by the fact that the extracts from them contained in our canonical books of Kings, coincide with the extracts from the books of the kings of Israel and Judah contained in our Chronicle where they narrate the same events, either verbally, or at least in so far that the identity of the sources from which they have been derived cannot but be recognised.

The only difference is, that the author of the Chronicle had the two writings which the author of the book of Kings quotes as two separate works, before him as one work, narrating the history of both kingdoms in a single composition. For he cites the book of the Kings of Israel even for the history of those kings of Judah who, like Jotham and Hezekiah, had nothing to do with the kingdom of Israel (i.e., the ten tribes), and even after the kingdom of the ten tribes had been already destroyed, for the reigns of Manasseh, Josiah, and Jehoiakim. But we are entirely without any means of answering with certainty the question, in how far the merging of the annals of the two kingdoms into one book of the kings of Israel was accompanied by remoulding and revision. The reasons which Bertheau, in his commentary on Chronicles, p. 41ff., brings forward, after the example of Thenius and Ewald, for thinking that it underwent so thorough a revision as to become a different book, are without force.

The difference in the title is not sufficient, since it is quite plain, from the different names under which the chronicler quotes the work which is used by him, that he did not give much attention to literal accuracy. The character of the parallel places in our books of Kings and the Chronicle, as Bertheau himself admits, forms no decisive criterion for an accurate determination of the relation of the chronicler to his original documents, which is now in question, since neither the author of the books of Samuel and Kings nor the author of the Chronicle intended to copy with verbal exactness: they all, on the contrary, treated the historical material which they had before them with a certain freedom, and wrought it up in their own writings in accordance with their various aims.

It is questionable if the work quoted for the reign of Joash, ham|laakiym ceeper mid|rash (No. 7), is identical with the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, or whether it be not a commentary on it, or perhaps a revision of that book, or of a section of the history of the kings for purposes of edification. The narrative in the Chronicle of the chief events in the reign of Joash, his accession, with the fall of Athaliah, and the repairing of the temple (2 Chron 23 and 24), agrees with the account of these events in 2 Kings 11 and 12 where the annals of the kings of Judah are quoted, to such an extent, that both the authors seem to have derived their accounts from the same source, each making extracts according to his peculiar point of view. But the Chronicle recounts, besides this, the fall of Joash into idolatry, the censure of this defection by the prophet Zechariah, and the defeat of the numerous army of the Jews by a small Syrian host (1 Chron 24:15-25); from which, in Bertheau's opinion, we may come, without much hesitation, to the conclusion that the connection of these events had been already very clearly brought forward in a Midrash of that book of Israel and Judah which is quoted elsewhere.

This is certainly possible, but it cannot be shown to be more than a possibility; for the further remark of Bertheau, that in the references which occur elsewhere it is not so exactly stated as in 2 Chron 24:27 what the contents of the book referred to are, is shown to be erroneous by the citation in 1 Chr 33:18 and 19. It cannot, moreover, be denied that the title ceeper mid|rash instead of the simple ceeper is surprising, even if, with Ewald, we take mid|raash in the sense of "composition" or "writing," and translate it "writing-book" (Schriftbuch), which gives ground for supposing that an expository writing is here meant.

Even taking the title in this sense, it does not follow with any certainty that the Midrash extended over the whole history of the kings, and still less is it proved that this expository writing may have been used by the chronicler here and there in places where it is not quoted.

So much, however, is certain, that we must not, with Jahn, Movers, Staehelin, and others, hold these annals of the kings of Israel and Judah, which are quoted in the canonical books of Kings and the Chronicle, to be the official records of the acts and undertakings of the kings prepared by the maz|kiyriym. (Note: Against this idea Bähr also has very justly declared (die Bücher der Könige, in J. P. Lange's theol. homilet. Bibelwerke, S. x.f.), and among other things has rightly remarked, that in the separated kingdom of Israel there is no trace whatever of court or national historians. But he goes much too far when he denies the existence of national annals in general, even in the kingdom of Judah, and under David and Solomon. For even granting that the maz|kiyr derives his name from this, "that his duty was, as mnee'moon , to bring to the recollection of the king all the state affairs which were to be cared for, and give advice in reference to them;" yet this function is so intimately connected wit the recording and preserving of the national documents of the kingdom and of all royal ordinances, that from it the composition of official annals of the kingdom follows almost as a matter of course. The existence of such national annals, or official year-books of the kingdom, is placed by 1 Chron 9:1 and 27:24 beyond all doubt. According to 9:1, a genealogical record of the whole of Israel was prepared and inserted in the book of the kings of Israel; and according to 27:24, the result of the numbering of the people, carried out by Joab under David, was not inserted in the book of the "Chronicles of King David." Bähr's objections to the supposition of the existence of national annals, rest upon the erroneous presupposition that all judgments concerning the kings and their religious conduct which we find in our canonical histories, would have also been contained in the annals of the kingdom, and that thus the authors of our books of Kings and Chronicles would have been mere copyists giving us some excerpts from the original documents.)

They are rather annalistic national histories composed by prophets, partly from the archives of the kingdom and other public documents, partly from prophetic monographs containing prophecy and history, either composed and continued by various prophets in succession during the existence of both kingdoms, or brought together in a connected form shortly before the ruin of the kingdom out of the then existing contemporary historical documents and prophetic records. Two circumstances are strongly in favour of the latter supposition. On the one hand, the references to these annals in both kingdoms do not extend to the last kings, but end in the kingdom of Israel with Pekah (2 Kings 15:31), in the kingdom of Judah with Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:5 and 2 Chron 36:8). On the other hand, the formula "until this day" occurs in reference to various events; and since it for the most part refers not to the time of the exile, but to times when the kingdom still existed (cf. 1 Kings 8:8 with 2 Chron 5:9; 1 Kings 9:13,21, with 2 Chron 8:8; 1 Kings 12:19 with 2 Chron 10:19; 2 Kings 8:22 with Chron 21:10; 2 Kings 2:22; 10:27; 14:7, and 16:6), it cannot be from the hand of the authors of our canonical books of Kings and Chronicles, but must