聖書注解書

前の書の終わりで、神がソロモンを高く上げ、イスラエルが彼に従ったこと、すなわち神とイスラエルが共にソロモンを尊んだことが記されていた。ここには次の事がらが記録されている。一、ソロモンがいけにえによって（歴代誌第二 1:1-6）、また祈りによって（歴代誌第二 1:7-12）神を尊んだこと。二、ソロモンがイスラエルの力、富、交易を増し加えることによってイスラエルを尊んだこと（歴代誌第二 1:13-17）。

歴代誌第一・第二 序論

1. 列王記二書と同様、歴代誌二書も元来は単一の著作であり、それが二つの「書」に分割されたのは七十人訳（セプトゥアギンタ）の翻訳者たちに由来する。この区分はヒエロニムスによって採用され、彼から西方教会の諸分派へと伝わった。ヘブライ語聖書において、この著作の題名は文字どおり「日々の行為」ないし「出来事」を意味する。この題名はもともと諸王のそれぞれの治世に関する記録に用いられたが、後に、これら個々の物語から編まれた概括的な著作にも適用されるようになった。

七十人訳の翻訳者たちは、この著作の内容と、聖書の歴史書の中で占めるその位置によりふさわしいと彼らが考えた題名を、これに代えて置いた。それがパラレイポメナ（Paraleipomena）、すなわち「省略された事々」である。これは、歴代誌がサムエル記と列王記の補足、すなわち主として先行する歴史の漏落を補う目的で書かれたものであることを含意させようとする名称であった。

英語の題名「Chronicles」（歴代誌。ウルガタ訳に由来）は、本来、時間を意味する語であるが、実際の用法では、年代記的要素が特に際立つ歴史というよりも、簡素で素朴な様式の歴史を指し示すものとなっている。

2. 「歴代誌」という書は、旧約聖書の他のいかなる書とも異なる位置を占めている。それは歴史であるが、新しい歴史ではない。著者が歩む地は、すでに他の人々によって踏みならされた地である。

そのようにする彼の目的は、彼の念頭にあった実際的な目標、すなわち彼自身の時代の特有の困難に応えるという目標によって、十分に示されている。民はつい先ごろ捕囚から帰還し、神殿を再建した。しかし、捕囚によって断ち切られた古い国民生活の糸を、いまだ拾い集めてはいなかった。それゆえ著者はまず、彼らの全歴史、この世の出来事の全経過、そして地上の諸国民の中で彼ら自身が占めていた位置を思い起こさせた。これは系図によって、簡潔に、味気ない仕方で、しかし十分になされた。系図は常に東洋の人々にとって特別な魅力を持っていたからである。さらに著者はとりわけ、組織された国民としての、すなわち国民生活の中心に確固たる拠点を持つ宗教を備えた、定着した民としての彼ら自身の過去を思い起こさせた。

著者の確固たる確信は、同胞の将来の繁栄のすべてが、神殿での礼拝の保持、祭司とレビ人の正当な扶養、「組」の規則的な確立、そして神殿の諸奉仕のレビ人の諸家族への正当な分配と結び付いている、というものであった。それゆえ彼は、ダビデ、ソロモン、そしてユダの後代の諸王の下での神殿の過去の歴史に同胞の注意を向け、ほとんどすべての実例において、この世的な報いと刑罰が、王が国民の宗教に対して取った態度と正確に符合して従ったことを指し示した。このような過去の描像――先行する全歴史を圧縮した一種の概観であり、当時の言語で書かれ、時事への頻繁な言及と、教えようとする教訓の絶えざる反復とを伴うもの――は、新たに帰還した、いまだ定着していない民に、従来の物語よりもはるかに強く深く影響を与えるものであった。歴代誌は、いわば、捕囚以前の国民と捕囚以後の国民とを隔てていた淵に橋を架けた。国民の運命がその手の内にあり、宗教上の忠実さが確実に神の祝福を確保するであろうことを示すことによって、国民生活を回復し、希望を呼び起こし、高い志を奮い立たせるうえで、大いに役立ったに違いない。

3. 歴代誌が捕囚からの帰還の後に成立したことは、その末尾の記述からだけでなく、他の諸部分からも明らかである。

文体上の証拠は、内容から得られる証拠と一致している。その語彙・語法は、エズラ記、ネヘミヤ記、エステル記――いずれも捕囚後に書かれた書物である――のそれと類似しており、多数のアラム語形と、少なくとも一つのペルシャ語に由来する語を含んでいる。したがって、その成立年代は紀元前538年より早いとは考えがたいが、かなり後である可能性はある。歴代誌とエズラ記の文体が極めて密接につながっていることは、たとえ同一人物によるものでないとしても、両者が同時期に成立したことをありそうにさせる。多くの人々が考えるようにエズラが著者であるならば、成立年代が紀元前435年よりかなり遅いことはありえない。エズラはおそらくその頃に世を去ったからである。本書の内容にも文体にも、成立年代を紀元前450～435年とすることを疑わしくするものはない。この時期より後と思われる1 Chronicles 3:23-24の系図も、後代の付加である可能性があるからである。

4. 歴代誌の著者は、その典拠として、二つの異なる種類の著作を挙げている。

(a) 彼が最も頻繁に参照するのは、概括的な歴史書、すなわち「イスラエルとユダの諸王の書」である。これは、列王記で絶えず言及される二つの歴史書――「イスラエルの諸王の年代記の書」と「ユダの諸王の年代記の書」――を一つに合わせることが便利であると認められて、編纂されたものである。

(b) 彼が引用する他の著作は、12部ないし13部から成る史書であり、国民の年代記の特定の部分を扱った預言者たちの著作である。これらの著作の正確な性格はいずれも我々には知られていない。しかし、それらが引用される仕方から、その大部分は、著者たちの時代の歴史――とりわけ宗教的な歴史――をある程度詳しく扱っていたと考えるのが妥当である。それらは独立した著作、すなわち個々の預言者によって書かれた、その時代の出来事に関するモノグラフ（専論）と見なすことができる。そのうち時折一部が、我々の「列王記」ではなく「イスラエルとユダの諸王の書」の中へ移されたのであり、残りは数世紀にわたって「諸王の書」と並存し、歴代誌の著者に、彼が我々に伝える特殊な情報の多くを供給した。

さらに、著者が先行する歴史聖書の全体を、とりわけ現存する形でのサムエル記と列王記を利用したことには、十分な証拠がある。1 Chronicles 1-8の主要な典拠は、創世記からルツ記までの先行する聖書であり、そこに、家系図のような私的な資料から引き出された記述や、ほとんどすべてのイスラエルの部族において「父祖のかしらたち」によって注意深く保存された家族史の多くの重要な事柄が補足として加えられている。1 Chronicles 10-27の主な典拠はサムエル記であり、2 Chronicles 1-36の典拠――ただし主な典拠とは言いがたいが――は列王記である（欄外の参照と注を比較せよ）。しかし著者は、これらのほかに常にさらに別の権威を持っており、サウルの死からエルサレムの陥落に至るユダ人の歴史のいずれの部分も、彼は、すでに失われた何らかの資料から引き出した新たな事実によって照らしているのである。

5. 著者の単一性を示す徴は多様性を示す徴にまさり、著作全体が同一の著者によるという結論へと導く。序論の部分である1 Chronicles 1-9に強く表れている系図的傾向は著者の著しい特徴であり、彼の記述のより純粋に歴史的な部分においても絶えず顔をのぞかせている。逆に、著作のうち純然たる系図の部分は、歴史の諸章を生かしているのと同じ精神に浸されており、しかも著者に特徴的な語句に富んでいる。

歴史の叙述（1 Chronicles 10-2 Chr. 36）が一手によるものであることは、ほとんど疑えない。一つの明確に教訓的な論調が全体を貫いている。すなわち、一つ一つの重大な災禍も成功も、義人に報い、悪を行う者を罰する、神の摂理の働きに最も直接的な仕方で帰せられている。また、至るところに同じ構成上の方法が見られる。すなわち、叙述の基礎としてサムエル記と列王記を第一に用いること、すでに語られた事柄の短縮、読者が他の経路で知っている重要な事実の省略、そして新たな事実の付加――時に些細で、重要というより風変わりなものであり、時にはあまりにも著しいので、先行する歴史家たちがなぜそれを見過ごしたのかと驚かされるほどのものである。

6. 歴代誌が文の中途で突然終わっていることは、本書が元来書かれた通りの形で我々に伝わったのではないことを示す、反論しがたい論拠である。

さらに、現行の歴代誌写本の末尾の記述がエズラ記の冒頭に再び現れること、そして両書の間に文体と論調の極めて密接な類似があるという動かしがたい事実とを併せ考えると、自然に一つの説明が示唆される。すなわち、歴代誌とエズラ記という二つの著作は元来一つであり、後に分割されたというのである。この説明は、最良の批評家たちの一部によっても受け入れられている。その分割はおそらく、捕囚後の時代の歴史を年代順に配列したいという願いから生じたものであろう。

7. 歴代誌のテキストの状態は、満足すべきものからほど遠い。異読は頻繁に、とりわけ人名と地名に見られ、省略は、とりわけ系図に見出され、数字は、時に自己矛盾し、時にサムエル記や列王記のより可能性の高い数字と矛盾し、時に不合理なほど大きく、それゆえ正当に疑いを抱かせる。

しかし本書は、より深刻な性格の欠陥からは免れている。その統一性は損なわれておらず、ほぼあらゆる点において、本書を著者の手から出た通りの姿で我々が持っていると信じるに足るあらゆる理由がある。

8. サムエル記および列王記の並行する歴史と比較すると、歴代誌の歴史は三つの主要な特徴によって特徴づけられる。

(a) 宗教の外面的な側面、すなわち神殿礼拝の細目、祭司とレビ人の多様な職務、組の編成などに思いを向ける、より大きな傾向。それゆえ、歴代誌の歴史は「教会史的」と呼ばれ、サムエル記と列王記の歴史は「政治史的」と称されてきた。この傾向は本書の信頼性を損なうものではなく、またこの歴史を信頼に値しないものとするものでもない。

(b) 著しい系図的関心、および語られた出来事のいずれかにかかわった人々の名を記録に残そうとする願い。そして

(c) 歴史のすべての出来事を神の御業に帰すことにおいて、より絶えず、よりあからさまに、より直接的であること。とりわけ、あらゆる大きな災禍や救出を、神の摂理がそのように罰し、あるいは報いられた君主ないし国民の善行または悪行に、より明白に関係付けること。

歴代誌をサムエル記や列王記より信頼に値しないと見なす理由はない。論争点、「レビ的精神」、矛盾、いわゆる誤謬などを正当に考慮しても、概していえば、著者の誠実さも、その著作の真正性も損なわれることはない。本書は、その一部の構成部分を例外として、すべての部分において真正であると正当に見なしうる。それらの部分は折に触れて（写本上の）損傷を被ったように見えるが、その程度が、同じ古さを持つ他の書を大きく超えることはほとんどない。この種の瑕なしに神の言葉を保つことは、神のみこころではなかった。こうした瑕の存在がそのほかの叙述の真正性にごくわずかでも影響を与えると、今日主張されることはまずないであろう。

歴代誌の文体は、列王記の文体よりも簡素であり、格調において劣る。1 Chronicles 16にあるダビデの詩歌と2 Chronicles 6にあるソロモンの祈りを例外とすれば、全書は散文的で、平坦で、均一である。列王記に見られるような特に印象的な章はない。しかし、その一方で、より暗くはない。回復された国民に向けられ、彼らを奮い立たせ、励まそうとするものであるからである。バビロンの水のほとりで泣いていた捕囚の民は、列王記の中にその悲嘆に満ちた歴史をふさわしく読み取った。解放された国民は、希望を抱いて新しい生活に入りつつ、歴代誌の中に、自らが歩み始めた前進の道をさらに進む助けとなるような過去の回顧を見出したのである。

Preface to the Two Books of Chronicles

Anciently these two books were considered but as one: for this we have not only the testimony of St. Jerome, but also that of the Masoretes, who gave the sum of all the sections, chapters, and verses, under one notation at the end of the second book, without mentioning any division; and although the modern Jews divide them, yet they give the Masoretic enumeration of sections, etc., as it was given of old; and all editors of the Masoretic Bibles, whether Jewish or Christian, follow the same plan.

These books have had several names. In Hebrew they are denominated דברי הימים dibrey haiyamim; literally, The Words of the Days, i.e., The Journals, particularly of the kings of Israel and kings of Judah. But this name does not appear to have been given by the inspired writer.

The Syriac has, The Book of the Transactions in the days of the Kings of Judah: which is called, Dibrey Yamim; referring to the Hebrew title.

The Arabic has, The Book of the Annals, which is called in Hebrew, Dibrey Haiyamim.

The Septuagint has, παραλειπομενων, of the things that were left or omitted; supposing that these books were a supplement either to Samuel and to the books of Kings, or to the whole Bible. To this the Greek translators might have been led by finding that these books in their time closed the Sacred Canon, as they still do in the most correct editions of the Hebrew Bible.

The Vulgate uses the same term as the Septuagint, referring, like the Syriac and Arabic, to the Hebrew name.

In our English Bibles these books are termed Chronicles, from the Greek χρονικα, from χρονος, i.e., A History of Times; or, as the matter of the work shows, "A History of Times, Kingdoms, States, Religion, etc., with an Account of the most memorable Persons and Transactions of those Times and Nations." Concerning the author of these books, nothing certain is known. Some think they are the works of different authors; but the uniformity of the style, the connection of the facts, together with the recapitulations and reflections which are often made, prove that they are the work of one and the same person.

The Jews, and Christian interpreters in general, believe they were the work of Ezra, assisted by the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. That Ezra was the author is, on the whole, the most probable opinion. That he lived at the conclusion of the Babylonish captivity is well known; and the second book of Chronicles terminates at that period, barely reciting the decree of Cyrus to permit the return of the captivated Israelites to their own land; which subject is immediately taken up in the book of Ezra, in which the operation of that decree is distinctly marked.

There are words and terms, both in Chronicles and Ezra, which are similar, and prove that each was written after the captivity, and probably by the same person, as those terms were not in use previously to that time, and some of them are peculiar to Ezra himself: e.g., we have כפורי זהב kipporey zahab, "golden cups;" Ezra 1:10; Ezra 8:27; and in 1 Chronicles 28:17; and דרכמון darkemon or drakmon, "a drachma" or; drachm, 1 Chronicles 29:7; Ezra 2:69; Nehemiah 7:70; and רפסדות raphsodoth, "rafts" or floats, 2 Chronicles 2:16, widely differing from דברות doberoth, 1 Kings 5:9, which we there translate in the same way. Calmet considers these words as strong evidence that these books were the work of Ezra, and penned after the captivity.

We are not to suppose that these books are the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and Israel so often referred to in the historical books of the Old Testament; these have been long lost, and the books before us can only be abridgments, either of such chronicles, or of works of a similar kind.

That the ancient Jews took great care to register their civil, military, and ecclesiastical transactions, is sufficiently evident from frequent reference to such works in the sacred writings; and that these registers were carefully and correctly formed, we learn from the character of the persons by whom they were compiled: they were in general prophets, and seem to have been employed by the kings under whom they lived to compile the annals of their reigns; or most likely this was considered a part of the prophet's regular office.

Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, wrote under the reign of David; 1 Chronicles 29:29.

The acts of the reign of Solomon were written by Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo; 2 Chronicles 9:29.

Shemaiah and Iddo wrote those of Rehoboam; 2 Chronicles 12:15.

Iddo wrote also those of Abijah; 2 Chronicles 13:22.

It is likely that Hanani the seer wrote those of Asa; 2 Chronicles 16:7.

Jehu the prophet, the son of Hanani, 1 Kings 16:1, 1 Kings 16:7, wrote the acts of Jehoshaphat; 2 Chronicles 20:34. Under this same reign we find Jahaziel the prophet, 2 Chronicles 20:14; and Eliezer the prophet, 2 Chronicles 20:37.

Isaiah recorded the transactions of Uzziah, 2 Chronicles 26:22; and those of Hezekiah, 2 Chronicles 32:32; and of Ahaz, of whose reign we find the principal facts in the fifth, sixth, and ninth chapters of his prophecies. Under this reign we find Oded the prophet, 2 Chronicles 28:9.

Hosea wrote the history of the reign of Manasseh. See 2 Chronicles 33:19, in the margin.

And Jeremiah wrote the history of Josiah and his descendants, the last kings of Judah.

This was such a succession of historians as no nation of the world could ever boast. Men, all of whom wrote under the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit; some of whom had minds the most highly cultivated, and of the most extraordinary powers. Whether the prophets who flourished in the reigns of the kings of Israel wrote the annals of those kings, we know not, because it is not positively declared. We know that Ahijah the Shilonite lived under Jeroboam, the son of Nebat; 1 Kings 11:29; 1 Kings 14:2; and Jehu, son of Hanani, under Baasha; 1 Kings 16:7.

Elijah and many others flourished under the reign of Ahab. Elisha, Jonah, and many more, succeeded him in the prophetic office.

Besides these prophets and prophetic men, we find other persons, whose office it was to record the transactions of the kings under whom they lived. These were called secretaries or recorders; so, under David and Solomon, Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder. מזכיר mazkir, "remembrancer;" 2 Samuel 8:16, and 1 Chronicles 18:15. And under Hezekiah we find Joah, the son of Asaph; 2 Kings 18:18. And under Josiah, Joah the son of Joahaz, who filled the office; 2 Chronicles 34:8.

The real object of the author of these books is not very easy to be ascertained. But it is evident that he never could have intended them as a supplement to the preceding books, as he relates many of the same circumstances which occur in them, and often in greater detail; and, except by way of amplification, adds very little that can be called new, and omits many things of importance, not only in the ancient history of the Israelites, but even of those mentioned in the preceding books of Samuel and Kings. Nine chapters of his work are occupied with extensive genealogical tables, but even these are far from being perfect. His history, properly speaking, does not begin till the tenth chapter, and then it commences abruptly with the last unsuccessful battle of Saul and his death, but not a word of his history.

Though the writer gives many curious and important particulars in the life of David, yet he passes by his adultery with Bath-sheba, and all its consequences. He says nothing of the incest of Amnon with his sister Tamar, nor a word of the rebellion and abominations of Absalom. He says very little of the kings of Israel, and takes no notice of what concerned that state, from the capture of Amaziah king of Judah by Joash king of Israel; 2 Chronicles 25:17, etc. And of the last wars of these kings, which terminated in the captivity of the ten tribes, he says not one word!

The principal design of the writer appears to have been this: to point out, from the public registers, which were still preserved, what had been the state of the different families previously to the captivity, that at their return they might enter on and repossess their respective inheritances. He enters particularly into the functions, genealogies, families, and orders of the priests and Levites; and this was peculiarly necessary after the return from the captivity, to the end that the worship of God might be conducted in the same way as before, and by the proper legitimate persons.

He is also very particular relative to what concerns religion, the worship of God, the temple and its utensils, the kings who authorized or tolerated idolatry, and those who maintained the worship of the true God. In his distribution of praise and blame, these are the qualities which principally occupy his attention, and influence his pen.

It may be necessary to say something here concerning the utility of these books. That they are in this respect in low estimation, we may learn from the manner in which they are treated by commentators: they say very little concerning them, and suppose the subject has been anticipated in the books of Samuel and Kings. That the persons who treat them thus have never studied them, is most evident, else their judgment would be widely different. Whatever history these books possess, in common with the books of Samuel and Kings, may, in a commentary, be fairly introduced in the examination of the latter; and this I have endeavored to do, as the reader may have already seen. But there are various details, and curious facts and observations, which must be considered in these books alone: nor will a slight mention of such circumstances do them justice.

St. Jerome had the most exalted opinion of the books of Chronicles. According to him, "they are an epitome of the Old Testament." He asserts, that "they are of such high moment and importance, that he who supposes himself to be acquainted with the sacred writings, and does not know them, only deceives himself; and that innumerable questions relative to the Gospel are here explained." Paralipomenon liber, id est, Instrumenti Veteris επιτομη, tantus ac talis est, ut abeque 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 Quaetiones. - Epis. Secund. ad Paulinum Presbyterum., Oper. Edit. Benedict. vol. iv., col. 574. And in another place he asserts, that "all Scripture knowledge is contained in these books;" Omnis eruditio Scripturarum in hoc libro continetur. - Praefat. in lib. Paral. justa Septuaginta Interpret Oper. Edit. Bened., vol. i., col. 1418. This may be going too far; but St. Jerome believed that there was a mystery and meaning in every proper name, whether of man, woman, city, or country, in the book. And yet he complains greatly of the corruption of those names, some having been divided, so as to make two or three names out of one, and sometimes names condensed, so as of three names to make but one. To cure this evil he labored hard, and did much; but still the confusion is great, and in many cases past remedy. To assist the reader in this respect I wish to refer him to the marginal readings and parallel texts, which are here carefully represented in the inner margin; these should be constantly consulted, as they serve to remove many difficulties and reconcile several seeming contradictions. In addition to these helps I have carefully examined the different ancient versions, and the various readings in the MSS. of Kennicott and De Rossi, which often help to remove such difficulties.

There is one mode of exposition which I have applied to these books, which has not, as far as I know, been as yet used: I mean the Targum, or Chaldee Paraphrase, of Rabbi Joseph. It is well known to all oriental scholars, that a Chaldee Targum, or Paraphrase, has been found and published in the Polyglots, on every book of the Old Testament, purely Hebrew, the books of Chronicles excepted. Neither in the Complutensian, Antwerp, Parisian, nor London Polyglot, is such a Targum to be found; none having been discovered when these works were published. But shortly after the London Polyglot was finished, a MS. was found in the University of Cambridge, containing the Targum on these books: this, with several other pieces, Arabic, Persian, Syriac, etc., Dr. Samuel Clarke collected, and intended to publish, as a supplementary volume to the Polyglot, but was prevented by premature death. The MS. was afterwards copied by Mr. David Wilkins, and printed, with a Latin translation, at Amsterdam, quarto, 1715. Of this work the reader will find I have made a liberal use, as I have of the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, on the preceding books. Rabbi Joseph, the author, lived about three hundred years after the destruction of the second temple, or about a.d. 400. The MS. in question formerly belonged to the celebrated Erpen, and was purchased by the duke of Buckingham, then Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and by him presented to the public library of that University.

It is worthy of remark, that the term מימרא meymera, "word," and מימרא דיי meymera dayeya, "the word of Jehovah," is used personally in this Targum; never as a word spoken, but as a Person acting: see the notes on John 1:1.

The first book of Chronicles contains a sort of genealogical history from the creation of the world to the death of David, A.M. 2989.

Solomon, and the chiefs of the congregation, go to Gibeon, where was the tabernacle of the Lord, and the brazen altar; and there he offers a thousand sacrifices, 2 Chronicles 1:1-6. The Lord appears to him in a dream, and gives him permission to ask any gift, 2 Chronicles 1:7. He asks wisdom, 2 Chronicles 1:8-10, which is granted; and riches, wealth, and honor besides, 2 Chronicles 1:11, 2 Chronicles 1:12. His kingdom is established, 2 Chronicles 1:13. His chariots, horsemen, and horses, 2 Chronicles 1:14. His abundant riches, 2 Chronicles 1:15. He brings horses, linen yarn, and chariots, at a fixed price, out of Egypt, 2 Chronicles 1:16, 2 Chronicles 1:17.

INTRODUCTION TO 2 CHRONICLES

This, and the preceding, were but one book originally, but divided into two because of the size of it, so that this is only a continuation of the former history; that ends at the death of David; this begins with the reign of Solomon, goes through that, and the reigns of all the kings of the house of David; of the kings of Judah only, after the separation of the ten tribes, quite down to the captivity of Judah in Babylon, and reaches to the deliverance of the Jews from thence by Cyrus, and contains an history of four hundred and seventy nine years. It treats not at all of the kings of Israel, after the separation, only of the kings of Judah, through whom the line of the Messiah was drawn; and though it omits several things recorded of them in the book of Kings, yet it gives abundance of anecdotes not to be met with there, which are of great use and advantage in history to know.

INTRODUCTION TO 2 Chronicles 1

This chapter relates, how that Solomon being confirmed in his kingdom, went to Gibeon to sacrifice 2 Chronicles 1:1, that the Lord appeared there to him, and what passed between them, 2 Chronicles 1:7 and that when he returned from thence to Jerusalem, he increased in splendour, wealth, and riches, 2 Chronicles 1:13.

THE SECOND BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES.

THE REIGN OF SOLOMON (2 Chronicles 1-9).

II. Chronicles.

BY

THE REV. C. J. BALL, M.A.

1. 2 Chronicles 1. describes a national sacrifice at Gibeon, and in connection therewith a dream in which God reveals His will to Solomon (1Kings 3:5). A few details are added respecting Solomon’s power, wealth, and commerce.

2. 2 Chronicles 2-7. are concerned with the principal topic of the writer’s presentation, viz., the building and consecration of the Temple.

3. 2 Chronicles 8, 9 supply further particulars of Solomon’s public works, his regulation of worship, his foreign relations, his revenues, wisdom, and glory; followed by a reference to authorities, and notice of his death.

§ 1. Title.—In the Hebrew MSS. the Books of Chronicles form a continuous work, bearing the general name of Dibrê hayyâmîm (“Events of the Days,” or “History of the Times”), which is no doubt an abridgment of Sêpher dibrê hayyâmîm—i.e., “The Book of the Events (or History) of the Times.” (Comp. 2Kings 14:19; 1Chronicles 27:24; Esther 6:1; Esther 10:2.) This designation is not given in the text of the work itself, but was prefixed by some unknown editor. Accordingly we find a different title in the LXX., which divides the work into two books, called Παραλειπομένων πρω̑τον and δευτερὸν (“First and Second [Book] of Things omitted”); or, Παραλειπομένων βασιλέων or, in some MSS., τῶν βασιλείοον ΙονδαÌ, α and β (“First and Second Book of omitted Notices of the Kings or the Kingdoms of Judah”). This title indicates that, in the opinion of the Greek translators, the work was intended as a kind of supplement to the older historical books. In that case, however, great part of Chronicles could only be considered redundant and superfluous, consisting, as it does, in the mere repetition of narratives already incorporated in Samuel and Kings. (See § 5, infra.) The name by which we know the work, and which fairly represents the Hebrew designation, is derived from St. Jerome, who says:—“Dibre hayamim, id est, Verba dierum, quod significantius Chronicon totius divinae historiae possumus appellare, qui liber apud nos Paralipomenon primus et secundus inscribitur” (Prolog, galeat.). The work, however, is not a mere chronicle or book of annals, although somewhat resembling one in its external form, and deriving its facts from annalistic sources (§ 7, infra). In the Vulgate we find the heading, “The First Book of Paralipomena, in Hebrew Dibre Haiamim.” In the Peshito-Syriac, “Next the Book of the Rule of Days [Dûbor yaumâthâ) of the Kings of Judah, which is cailed Sephar debar yamîn.” In the Arabic, “In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. The First Book of the Kitâb ’akhbâri ’l’ayyâmi—the Book of the Histories of the Days; which is called in the Hebrew, Dibrâ hayyâmîn.”

That Chronicles was originally a single, undivided work, is evident from the Masoretic note at the end of the Hebrew text, which states that 1Chronicles 27:25 is the middle verse of the whole book. Moreover, Josephus, Origen (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 25), Jerome, and the Talmud reckon but one book of Chronicles. The Peshito-Syriac ends with the remark”: “Finished is the book of Debar yamin, in which are 5,603 verses”—implying the unity of the work. The present division into two books, which certainly occurs in the most suitable place, was first made by the LXX. translators, from whom it was adopted by St. Jerome in the Vulgate, and so passed into the other versions and the modern printed editions of the Hebrew Bible.

§ 2. Relation to the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.—An attentive examination of the Hebrew text of the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, soon reveals the important fact that the three apparently separate works resemble each other very closely, not only in style and language, which is that of the latest age of Hebrew writing, but also in the general point of view, in the manner in which the original authorities are handled and the sacred Law expressly cited, and, above all, in the marked preference for certain topics, such as genealogical and statistical registers, descriptions of religious rites and festivals, detailed accounts of the sacerdotal classes and their various functions, notices of the music of the Temple, and similar matters connected with the organisation of public worship. These resemblances in manner, method, and matter, raise a strong presumption of unity of authorship, which is accordingly asserted by most modern scholars. As regards Chronicles and Ezra, this result is further indicated by the strange termination of the Chronicles in the middle of an unfinished sentence, which finds its due completion in the opening verses of Ezra. (Comp. 2Chronicles 36:22-23 with Ezra 1:1-4.) Had Chronicles been an independent work, it might have ended less abruptly at 2Chronicles 36:21. But there is no real break in the narrative between 2 Chronicles 36 and Ezra 1; and the awkwardness of the existing division simply points to the perplexity of some editor or transcriber, who did not know where to leave off. It is absurd to lay any stress on the two trivial variants between the two passages. They are not marks of an editorial hand, but merely errors of transcription. (See Notes on 2Chronicles 36:22-23.)

There are other facts which combine with the above considerations to prove that Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah originally constituted a single great history, composed upon a uniform plan by one author. Thus there is actually extant part of a Greek version of the three books which ignores their division. The Third Book of Esdras is, with certain important omissions and additions, an independent translation of the history from 2 Chronicles 35 to Nehemiah 8:12. In this work the edict of Cyrus occurs but once; and it is evident that the author’s Hebrew text did not divide the history into three distinct books.

Further, the ancients did not separate Ezra and Nehemiah in the modern fashion. The Talmudic treatise Baba bathra (fol. 15. A), the Masorah, and the Christian fathers Origen and Jerome, regard Ezra-Nehemiah as a single work; and it appears in the Vulgate as 1st and 2nd of Esdras, a non-fundamental division like that of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, into two books each. Indeed, the Book of Ezra as it stands is an unfinished fragment, which finds its natural continuation in Nehemiah 8 sea., where the history of Ezra’s part in the restoration is further pursued. Lastly, the notes of time in Chronicles and Nehemiah coincide (see § 3 infra); and the genealogies of the high priests from Eleazar to Jehozadak in 1Chronicles 6:4-16, and from Jeshua to Jaddua in Nehemiah 12:10-11, are given in the same form, and are obviously complementary, covering, as they do, when taken together, the whole period from Moses to Alexander the Great.

The LXX. translators found Chronicles already severed from Ezra-Nehemiah. This division is explicable in connection with the formation of the Hebrew Canon. In the Hebrew text the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah precedes Chronicles, apparently because the value of this, the newer and more interesting portion of the whole work, was recognised first. Chronicles may well have been regarded as of less importance, because to a great extent it merely repeats the familiar narratives of Samuel and Kings. In no long time, however, it was perceived that the new relation of the ancient history was animated by the spirit of the age, and its catalogues of family descent, and its detailed treatment of religious matters, won for it first, perhaps, general use as a manual of instruction, and then the last place in the sacred Canon.

§ 3. Date.—The orthography and language of the Chronicle, its Levitical tendency, and its position at the end of the Hagiographa, conspire to suggest a comparatively late origin. Other internal evidence of a more definite character enables us to settle the question of date with approximate precision. The partially confused passage, 1Chronicles 3:19-24, carries the line of David’s posterity down to at least the sixth generation from Zerubbabel, who along with the High Priest Jeshua conducted the first return, B.C. 536. According to R. Benjamin in the Me’or ‘enayim (fol. 153. A, quoted by Zunz), as many as nine generations must be reckoned from Jesaiah to Johanan in this genealogy. In like manner, the LXX. makes eleven generations from Zerubbabel to the last name in the list. This brings the date of the author down to about B.C. 200, if we count thirty years to the generation. This was the opinion of Zunz, whom Nöldeke follows. Kuenen also favours a late epoch, asserting that “the author must have lived about B.C. 250.” These views, however, are not accepted by the majority of modern scholars; and they rest upon a highly questionable interpretation of the passage under consideration. (See Notes on 1Chronicles 3:19, seq.)

What is certain is, that both in this genealogy of the house of David, and in that of the high priests, the writer descends several generations below the age of Ezra and Nehemiah, who flourished about B.C. 445. Thus in Nehemiah 12:10-11 the line of the high priests is traced as far as Jaddua, who was the fifth successor of Jeshua the contemporary of Zerubbabei. Josephus informs us that Jaddua came into personal contact with Alexander the Great (Antiq. xi. 7, 8). This points to a date about B.C. 330. Again, Nehemiah 12:22 appears to speak of Jaddua and “Darius the Persian” (i.e., Codomannus) as belonging to an earlier age than the writer; and Nehemiah 12:47 refers to “the days of Zerubbabel and Nehemiah” as to a past already distant

It is an acute suggestion of Ewald’s that the chronicler’s designation of Cyrus and Darius as “kings of Persia,” indicates that he lived and wrote after the fall of the Persian monarchy. The reckoning by “darics” in 1Chronicles 29:7 does not prove authorship during the Persian dominion. The Persian coinage would not disappear from use immediately upon the establishment of the Greek supremacy. A few other terms survived in the language as vestiges of the Persian age; and the Temple fortress was still called the Baris (comp. the Persian baru) in the days of Josephus. On the other hand, Prof. Dillmann is probably right in asserting that “there are no reasons of any sort for fixing the authorship of the Chronicle as late as the third century, or even later.” The limits of the two genealogies above considered are evidence against such a conclusion. Upon the whole, it appears likely that the great historical work, of which Chronicles forms the largest section, was compiled between the years B.C. 330 and B.C. 300, and perhaps somewhat nearer the latter than the former date.

§ 4. Author.—“Ezra wrote his own book, and the genealogy of the Chronicles down to himself.” Such is the assertion of the Talmud (Baba bathra, fol. 15. A). But we are no more bound to accept this as fact than the preceding statements which connect Moses with the Book of Job, and—more wonderful still—Adam with the Psalms. The grain of truth embodied in the tradition is simply this, that the compiler of the last great book of history has drawn largely upon the authentic memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah, incorporating whole sections of their journals in his work. But, as every Hebrew scholar knows, a single hand can be traced throughout the three books now called Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah; and the original documents stand out in sharp contrast to their modern setting, wherever the compiler has been contented to transcribe verbally. From the entire tone and spirit of the work, it is reasonably inferred by most critics that it was the production of a Levite attached to the Temple at Jerusalem in the latter half of the fourth century B.C. Ewald further supposes the author to have belonged to one of the guilds of Levitical musicians: a conjecture which is highly probable, considering how much the work has to tell us about the Temple choirs and their music. Keil objects that the porters are mentioned as often as the musicians, and that therefore we might just as well assume the chronicler to have been a porter or Temple-warder. But an acquaintance with musical technicalities such as the writer displays almost certainly proves him to have been a member of one of the musical guilds. Similarly, it is no reply to allege that priests are made quite as prominent in the work as Levitical warders and musicians. The priests are naturally mentioned on all religious occasions as being the principal functionaries. The fact that the inferior ministers are so persistently brought forward in their company—which is not the case in the older history—proves the peculiar interest of the author in these latter.

§ 5. Contents.—Character and Scope of the Work. The Chronicle opens with an outline of primeval history from Adam to David. The Pentateuchal narratives, however, are not repeated, because the five books were already recognised as canonical, and the writer had nothing to add to them. In like manner, the times of the Judges and the reign of Saul are passed over. The chronicler had no special sources for that period, and it did not appear to lend itself easily to the illustration of the particular lesson which he wished to enforce upon his readers. Accordingly the first section of his work takes the driest and most succinct form imaginable, that of a series of genealogies interspersed with brief historical notices (1 Chronicles 1-9). The writer’s extraordinary fondness for genealogical and statistical tables is apparent also in other parts of his history, and is to be explained by reference to the special requirements of the post-exilic age. (Comp. Ezra 2:59, seq.) Here, after tracing the generations from Adam to Jacob, the writer gives a flying survey of the twelve tribes, lingering longest over Judah, the tribe of David, and Levi, the tribe of the priests; after which (in 2 Chronicles 8, 9) his horizon narrows at once from all Israel to the southern kingdom only (Benjamin, Judah, Jerusalem). 2 Chronicles 10—the death of Saul—is transitional to the reign of David, which follows at length (1 Chronicles 11-29).

The second and main portion of the work (1 Chronicles 11 -2 Chronicles 36) relates the history of the kings who reigned in Jerusalem from David to Zedekian, thus covering a period of between four and five centuries (B.C. 1055-588). The third part contains the history of the restored community under Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah (B.C. 536-432), and is now known as the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. (See the Introduction to those books.)

When we consider the second part of this great compilation, we are immediately struck by the large space occupied by the reign of David. To the chronicler, as to the prophetic historians before him, that reign, it would seem, was the golden age of his people’s history. The greater distance at which he stood from the old heroic times of the monarchy only intensified the spell which they wrought upon his imagination. He does not, however, repeat the familiar tale of David’s romantic adventures, of his reign at Hebron, of his sin against Uriah, of the revolt of Absalom, and similar matters. His point of view and the needs of his contemporaries are different from those of the older historians; and it is as the true founder of Jerusalem and the Temple, with its beautiful service of music and song, and as the prime author of the priestly organisation, that the heroic figure of David engages his highest interest. Accordingly, all that refers to the activity of the king in these directions is described with intentional fulness and emphasis. (See 1 Chronicles 13-18, 12-29)

The reign of Solomon is treated much more briefly, though at considerably greater length than any subsequent one (2 Chronicles 1-9). Here again we observe a fuller description of whatever relates to religion and its ministers. In fact, the account of the building and dedication of the Temple occupies by far the largest part of the narrative (2 Chronicles 2-7).

The rest of the history is told from the same standpoint. After the division of the kingdom, the writer follows the fortunes of the Davidic monarchy, which was the more important from a religious, if not from a political, point of view. The northern kingdom he almost entirely ignores, as founded upon apostasy from the orthodox worship, as well as from the legitimate rule of the house of David. Even in this limited field, political, military, and personal facts and incidents are subordinated to the religious interest, and it is obvious that the real subject of the history is everywhere that holy religion which made Israel what it was, and upon which its historical significance wholly depends. Thus the reigns of Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Hezekiah, and Josiah are especially prominent, because they witnessed the initiation of important religious reforms, and the restoration of Jerusalem and its sanctuary to their hereditary rank as the religious centre of the nation. And thus “traditions about the Temple and its worship, the sacerdotal orders and their functions, the merits of the kings and others in the matter of the cultus, are presented with great fulness, and the author expatiates with evident delight on the sacred festivals of the olden time. Reigns of which little of the sort could be told are briefly treated” (Dillmann).

From all this we may gather the aim of the work. The writer has produced not so much a supplement of the older histories, as an independent work, in which the history of the chosen people is related afresh in a new manner, and from a new point of view. That point of view has been characterised as the priestly-Levitical, in contradistinction to the prophetical spirit of the ancient writers. To understand this, we must remember that in the chronicler’s day the political independence of Israel was a thing of the past; and that the religion of the Law was the most precious survival from the great catastrophe which had finally shattered the nation, and the principle of cohesion and the basis of all order, public and private, in the new community. The writer’s main object, therefore, is to urge upon his contemporaries a faithful observance of the Mosaic Law; and he seeks to impress his lesson by presenting a picture of times and occasions when, with the Temple as its centre, and the priests and Levites as its organs, the legitimate worship flourished and brought blessing upon the land.

§ 6. Documental Authorities. Relation to the Books of Samuel and Kings.—Besides a number of narratives running parallel to those of Samuel and Kings, the Books of Chronicles contain other important accounts which are without parallel in the older histories. Such are many of the genealogical and statistical tables, as well as certain supplementary details and stories inserted in different reigns. The former, which possessed a very special interest for the chronicler’s contemporaries, were ultimately derived from those ancient taxation rolls or assessment lists, which were so highly valued by the Jews in the times, immediately preceding and subsequent to the captivity (Ezra 2:59; Ezra 2:62). These catalogues may in some cases have been preserved independently, but it is probable that the chronicler found most of them already incorporated in the historical compilations which constituted his principal authorities. (Comp. 1Chronicles 5:17; 1Chronicles 7:2; 1Chronicles 9:1; 1Chronicles 23:3; 1Chronicles 23:27; 1Chronicles 26:31; 1Chronicles 27:24; Nehemiah 12:23; Nehemiah 7:5.) The censuses, for instance, to which reference is made in 1Chronicles 5:17; 1Chronicles 7:2, were doubtless entered in the state annals.

The second, and to us more important, historical element peculiar to Chronicles is equally based upon trustworthy records of an earlier period. The writer refers from time to time to documents which he presumes to be well known to his readers, for further details upon subjects which he does not himself care to pursue. At first sight the number of these documents appears to be so considerable as to excite surprise, especially when we remember that the compiler of Kings mentions only two or three such primary documents. For almost every reign a different source appears to be cited; which is the more remarkable, inasmuch as the titles indicate that more than one of the histories referred to must have contained the entire history of the kings of Jerusalem. The references in question are:

1.The History of Samuel the seer,

2.The history of Nathan the prophet,

3.The history of Gad the seer,

}

in 1Chronicles 29:29, for David.

4.The prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite,

5.The vision of Je-edi or Je-edo the seer against Jeroboam ben Nebat,

}

in 2Chronicles 9:29, for Solomon.

6.The history of Shemaiah the prophet,

7.The history of Iddo the seer,

}

in 2Chronicles 12:15, for Rehoboam.

8.The Midrash of the prophet Iddo, in 2Chronicles 13:22, for Abijah.

9.The book of the kings of Judah and Israel, in 2Chronicles 16:11; 2Chronicles 25:26; 2Chronicles 28:26, for Asa, Amaziah, and Ahaz.

10.The history of Jehu the son of Hanani, inserted in the book of the kings of Israel, in 2Chronicles 20:34, for Jehoshaphat

11.The Midrash of the book of the Kings, in 2Chronicles 24:27, for Joash.

12.The history of Uzziah, by Isaiah the prophet, 2Chronicles 26:22.

13.The book of the kings of Israel and Judah, in 2Chronicles 27:7; 2Chronicles 35:27; 2Chronicles 36:8, for Jotham, Josiah, and Jehoiakim. Perhaps also in 1Chronicles 9:1.

14.The vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, in the books of the kings of Judah and Israel, 2Chronicles 32:32, for Hezekiah.

15.The history of the kings of Israel, 2Chronicles 33:18,

16.The history of Hozai (or, The words of the Seers), 2Chronicles 33:19,

}

for Manasseh.

Six reigns, viz., those of Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah, are without any such references.

The similarity of some of these sixteen titles favours the supposition of their being merely variations of each other. “The book of the kings of Judah and Israel” (9) may at once be equated with “the book of the kings of Israel and Judah” (13). “The history (words) of the kings of Israel” (15) is an expression tantamount to “the book of the kings of Israel” (10). Five at least, then, of the above citations refer to a single work, a “history of the kings of Judah and Israel.” This work appears to have been a compilation based upon the same annalistic sources as the canonical books of Kings—viz., “the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel,” and “the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah.” It was probably younger than the canonical Kings, and was perhaps in some degree influenced by the form and contents of that work. That it was not identical therewith, as used to be assumed, is certain, because it contained much which is not found there—e.g., genealogical and other lists, and the account of Manasseh’s captivity and restoration (2Chronicles 33:18); and the chronicler often refers to this work for fuller information in cases where the narrative in the existing Book of Kings is even briefer than his own. (Comp. 2 Chronicles 27 with 2Kings 15:32-38.)

The references to prophetic “words” (dibrê), or rather histories, are by some supposed to imply the existence of a number of historical monographs written by the prophets with whose names they are connected. But “the history of Jehu the son of Hanani” (10) is expressly cited, not as an independent work, but as a section of the great Book of the Kings; and “the vision of Isaiah the prophet (14) is another section of the same work. Moreover, when the chronicler does not refer to the history he generally mentions a prophetic account, but never both for the same reign (unless 2Chronicles 33:18-19 be an exception). It is likely, therefore, that the other prophetic histories (Numbers 1-7) were integral parts of the same great compilation, and are merely cited in briefer form, perhaps as the chronicler found them already cited in that his principal source. We do not know what were the grounds which determined the selection of a work by the unknown collectors of the Canon, but it seems certain that had a number of separate writings of such prophets as Samuel, Nathan, Gad, and Isaiah been extant in the chronicler’s age, they would have been included in the Canon.

The “history of Uzziah, which Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz wrote” (12; see 2Chronicles 26:22), does not appear to be an exception to the above general inference. Whether, as Prof. Dillmann thinks, the chronicler himself supposed Isaiah to have been the author of the history of Uzziah as embodied in the great Book of the Kings (comp. Isaiah 6 l), or whether, as is more likely, he merely copies the reference from that source, makes no difference. On the other hand, it is, of course, quite possible that an independent monograph of Isaiah’s did exist and was known to the chronicler, although no trace of it is to be recognised in the canonical Books of Kings or Isaiah. Similar considerations would apply to “the history of Hozai” (16; see 2Chronicles 33:19), which is apparently contrasted in 2Chronicles 33:19 with “the history of the kings of Israel,” were it not likely that the text of that passage is unsound.

Lastly, the chronicler refers besides to a “Midrash of the prophet Iddo” (8), and a “Midrash of the book of the Kings” (11). The former may have been a section of the latter work. In this, as in the preceding cases, it was natural to cite a particular passage of a large book of history, by mentioning the name of the prophet with whose activity it was chiefly concerned; because the division of the canonical books into sections and chapters was unknown to antiquity (comp. our Lord’s reference in Mark 12:26, “in the bush,” i.e., in the section relating to the burning bush; and St. Paul’s “in Elias,” Romans 11:2.)

The term “Midrash” occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament. It means “search,” “investigation,” “study,” and is the neo-Hebraic term for the Rabbinical exegesis of the sacred books. A Beth-midrash is a school in which the Law and other scriptures are studied under the lead of a Rabbi, whose disciples are called talmîdîm, a word first occurring in 1Chronicles 25:8. “The Midrash of the book of the Kings” was probably a kind of commentary or expository amplification of the great “history of the Kings of Judah and Israel;” and the chronicler may have derived other narratives from this source, besides the two for which he cites it. But it is pure dogmatism to say, with Reuss, that “his work from one end to the other is drawn from a Midrash; and it is this Midrash that is responsible for all that provokes our doubts, including the history of Uzziah written by Isaiah.” The Midrash which the chronicler consulted may really have been an early predecessor of that series of works so well known to students of Rabbinical Hebrew as the Midrashim (Bereshith rabba, Shemoth rabba, &c. &c.); but its intrinsic superiority to all these later works is evident from the extracts preserved in the Chronicles.

We have now characterised the two principal sources of the accounts peculiar to the Books of Chronicles. The compiler may, of course, have had at his command other documents besides those to which he refers by name; but probably they were few in number, and certainly of subordinate importance.

It remains to ask what is the precise relation between the forty or more passages of Chronicles which are more or less exact duplicates of parallel passages in Samuel and Kings?

This question can hardly be answered with certainty. The negative criticism which flourished in Germany at the beginning of the present century found an easy offhand reply in the theory that the chronicler transcribed his parallel accounts directly from the canonical Books of Samuel and Kings. All deviations and peculiarities were results of misunderstanding, fictitious embellishment, and wilful perversion of the older history. It would hardly be worth while to revive the memory of this unhistorical and obsolete criticism, were it not still salutary to signalise the former errors of scholars whose theories for a time enjoyed unbounded influence, by way of suggesting caution to such persons as are inclined to accord a too hasty acceptance to similarly destructive hypotheses advocated by men of acknowledged ability at the present day. What is certain is, (1) that the chronicler must have known the great history now divided into the Books of Samuel and Kings; (2) that many of his narratives at different points verbally coincide with these books, and so far might have been transcribed from them; but (3) these coincidences may be accounted for by the supposition advanced above, viz., that the same ancient state annals were the principal source from which both the compiler of the older canonical history, and the compiler of that “book of the kings of Judah and Israel” which supplied the chronicler with so much of his narrative, derived the staple of their history; and further, that the “book of the kings of Judah and Israel” may have been in part constructed on the model of the already existing Books of Samuel and Kings. At the same time we may freely admit that the form into which the history was already cast in the older work would naturally exert some, and perhaps a considerable, influence upon the mind and work of the latest historian of Israel.

§ 7. The Historical Value of Chronicles.—This question has in part been already decided by the results at which we arrived in discussing the prior question of the sources. All that remains to be determined is, whether and how far the chronicler was faithful to his authorities. Whatever charges of distortion, misinterpretation, falsification, fictitious embellishment, &c. &c, of the ancient history have been levelled against him by earlier critics, have been amply disproven by their successors. Such charges depended for the most part upon the assumption that he had no other documents than the canonical books of the Old Testament—an assumption sufficiently rebutted by impartial examination of internal evidence. Comparing the parallel sections with their duplicates in Samuel and Kings, we find in general an assiduous and faithful reproduction of the sources, which warrants us in supposing that the important passages of the narrative which are peculiar to Chronicles were likewise extracted with substantial accuracy from other historical records no longer extant. Often, indeed, in such passages the style is so much purer than that which we identify as the chronicler’s own, as to suggest at once that he is simply transcribing from an ancient document; though more usually he has recast what he found in his authority. It is admitted that the chronicler wrote with a distinct purpose, and that his aim was not so much history for its own sake, as edification. He writes neither as a modern scientific historian, nor as a mere annalist, but with a distinctly didactic and hortatory object. Accordingly, in the exercise of his lawful discretion, he omits some well-known passages of the ancient history, and adds others more to his purpose. He habitually inserts remarks of his own, which put the facts narrated into relation to the working of Divine Providence, and so bring into prominence the religious aspect of events, while religious conceptions prevalent in his own age naturally find expression through his pages. (Comp. 1Chronicles 21:1 with 2Samuel 24:1) Moreover, he does not hesitate, nor would any writer of his time have hesitated, to put appropriate speeches into the mouths of leading personages, some of which betray their ideal character by a close similarity in form and matter; and although in some cases he undoubtedly had genuine tradition at his command, and simply followed his documents, in others he has freely expanded the meagre records of the past, and developed the fundamental thoughts of the speakers according to his own taste. In the description of ancient religious solemnities he has reasonably enough been influenced by his minute professional knowledge of the ritual of his own day, and has thus succeeded in his purpose of lending animation to the dry memoranda of the past. Yet it must not be forgotten that he probably had substantial precedents for this mode of treatment, and, further, that in antiquity religious custom is the least likely sphere of innovation. Besides all this, the chronicler has considered the needs and tastes of his own time by substituting current for obsolete Hebrew words, phrases, and constructions, and by interpretation, paraphrase, and correction of what seemed obscure or faulty in the ancient texts. The mode of spelling (scriptio plena), and the Aramaisms which characterise his work, are what were to be expected from a writer of his age. In these latter respects the Chronicle already foreshadows the Targum or “Chaldee” Paraphrase.

Many deviations from the older canonical history, especially in the matter of names and numbers, are due to errors of transcription in one or the other text; and many may be ascribed to the licence of editors and copyists, which in those early times far exceeded what would now be considered allowable. To appreciate this argument, it is only necessary to examine the LXX. translation of the Books of Samuel, which obviously represents a Hebrew original differing in many important particulars from the present Masoretic Recension. Discrepancies due to such causes obviously do not affect the credibility of the chronicler. And with regard to excessive numbers, in particular, we have to bear in mind “the tendency of numbers to grow in successive transcriptions,” and the fact already demonstrated (§ 6) that Chronicles was only indirectly derived from the same primary sources as Samuel and Kings. The existing text of the older books is itself not free from exaggerated numbers (see 1Samuel 6:19; 1Samuel 13:5); and in some instances the figures of Chronicles are lower and intrinsically more probable than those of the older history. (Comp. 2Chronicles 9:25 with 1Kings 5:6.) After making every allowance upon these and similar grounds, the impartial critic will still acquiesce in the conclusion of Ewald, that “we should deprive ourselves of one of the richest and oldest sources of the Davidical history, if we failed to do justice to the very remarkable remains of the state annals fortunately preserved to us in the Book of Chronicles;” and that “this work, when rightly understood and applied, not only yields very valuable supplements to the history of the (Davidic) monarchy, the foundation of which undoubtedly rested on the original state annals, but also tells us of many prophets, of whose very names we should have otherwise been wholly ignorant” (Hist. of Israel, Martineau’s Translation, p. 195).

§ 8. Literature of the Subject.—A list of the older commentators may be read in Carpzov and in Lange’s Bibelwerk. The principal modern works known to the present writer are Bertheau’s (English Trans, in Clarke’s Foreign Library, 2nd ed. 1860); Keil’s, also translated in Clarke’s series (ed. 1872); Zockler’s, in Lange (English trans., 1876); and that of Reuss (ed. Paris, 1878). He has also had before him L’Abbé Martin’s Commentary (ed. Paris, 1880), a recent work by a Roman Catholic priest, which closely follows Keil and Zöckler. The criticisms of Thenius in his Die Bücher der Könige (Leipzig, 1873) have always been considered, and specially noticed whenever it seemed advisable.

The following have been consulted upon introductory questions:—Gramberg (Die Chronik nach ihrem geschichtlicheii Charakter, &c. Halle, 1823). His reasonings are interesting from a historical point of view, but his conclusions are thoroughly unfair, and no longer require refutation. Graf (Die gesch. Bücher des alt. Test. Leipzig, 1866), Also a hostile criticism. De Wette’s Einleitung, as re-edited by Schrader, who modifies the more extreme dicta of the original author. Movers (Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die bibl. Chronik. Bonn, 1834); a reply to Gramberg and De Wette. Keil’s Einleitung (Frankfurt, 1853). Zöckler’s Handbuch der theolog. Wissenschaften (Nõrdlingen, 1882). Ewald’s History of Israel (Martineau’s English Transi., Longmans, 1876). Kuenen’s History of Israel (English Transl., 1875) follows Graf in exaggerating the subjective and unhistorical tendency of the chronicler. Wellhausen’s tract, De gentibus et familiis Judaeis quae 1 Chronicles 2-4 enumerantur (Göttingen, 1870), is very important for the right understanding of the genealogies. The article Chronik, by Prof. Dillmann, in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopädie is a specially fair estimate of the work; and the same may be said of Prof. Robertson Smith’s Chronicles in the Encyclopœdia Britannica. The writer has also to acknowledge considerable obligations to the same author’s Old Testament in the Jewish Church, and The Prophets of Israel, and to Schrader’s Keilin-schriften und das Aite Testament (Giessen, 1883). For several important suggestions he is indebted to his friend Prof. Sayce, who kindly looked through the Notes on the greater part of the first book.

§ 9. Ancient Versions. State of the Hebrew Text.—The translation of Chronicles in the LXX. is carefully and skilfully done, is strictly literal, and one of the best works of those translators, far surpassing the Books of Samuel and Kings, which proceed from another hand. In many passages it still preserves an unquestionably better reading than that of the Masoretic Recension. In too many instances, however, it has had its readings altered into conformity with later Greek versions of the textus receptus, and thus its originality has in part been obliterated by the hands of injudicious editors. (See Movers’ Untersuch., p. 93.) In the Greek of 2 Chronicles 35, 36 there are a few interpolations corresponding to passages in 2 Kings 23, 24

The old Latin versions, upon which the Vulgate is based, followed the LXX.

The Peshittā (Peshito) Syriac version presents many surprising peculiarities of omission, interpolation, transposition, and paraphrase, insomuch that it resembles a Jewish Targum rather than a literal version. This phenomenon suggests that Chronicles was perhaps not received with the original collection of sacred books in the Peshito (Dillmann).

The Arabic version is a daughter of the Syriac, and possesses little independent value for the criticism of the text.

The Targum is late (seventh century?) and is not printed in the Rabbinical Bibles. Lagarde has recently edited another, which I have not been able to procure. The four versions have been consulted in Walton’s Polyglot; and for the LXX. Tischendorf’s edition has also been used. The unsatisfactory condition of the Hebrew text, due perhaps to the fact that Chronicles was never so highly valued as other portions of the Canon, may in part be remedied by careful comparison of the data of the versions, as well as of the other books of the Old Testament.

2Ch 1:1-6.

ギブオンでの ソロモンの 荘厳な献げ物

And Solomon the son of David - The very beginning of this book shows that it is a continuation of the preceding, and should not be thus formally separated from it. See the preface to the first book.

The Lord his God was with him - "The Word of the Lord was his support." - Targum.

And Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom,.... Well settled and established on the throne of his father, after the death of some persons, from whom he might expect trouble, see 1 Kings 2:46.

and the Lord God was with him; directing and instructing him, prospering and succeeding him: the Targum is,"the Word of the Lord was his help:''and magnified him exceedingly; see 1 Chronicles 29:25.