INTRODUCTION (continued 2)

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

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

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

§ 8. The Religious Value of Chronicles

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

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

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

§ 9. Name and Position in the Canon

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

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

Division. The division of Chronicles into two books (as in the English Versions) probably originated in the Septuagint (LXX.); the MSS. A and B both mark the division. It entered the English Version through the Latin Vulgate. On the other hand, Rabbinical evidence (Talmud, Baba Bathra 15a; and the Masōrah) and the Christian Fathers testify that among the Hebrews the book was undivided: so Origen (apud Eusebius Church History vi. 25, 2) and Jerome (Domnioni et Rogatiano).

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

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.