성경 주석서

이 장과 뒤따르는 여러 장은 지금까지 거룩한 역사에서 보아 온 족보들을 되풀이하여 상당한 내용을 덧붙인 뒤 한데 모은다. 다른 병행 본문과 대조하면 만족스럽게 조화시키기 어려운 차이가 있으므로, 차라리 기록되지 않았으면 좋았을 것이라 생각하기 쉽다. 그러나 그것 때문에 말씀에 걸려 넘어질 것이 아니라, 구원에 필요한 진리가 충분히 분명하다는 사실로 하나님을 찬송해야 한다. 지혜로우신 하나님이 이것들을 우리를 위해 기록하기로 뜻하셨으므로 읽지 않은 채 지나쳐서는 안 된다. 모든 성경은 유익하지만 모든 부분이 똑같이 유익한 것은 아니다. 다른 부분만큼 유익한 설명거리를 많이 주지 않는 곳에서도 선한 생각과 묵상의 기회를 얻을 수 있다.

이 족보들은 다음과 같은 유익이 있다. 1. 이 기록이 보존되어 바벨론에서 돌아온 유대인들의 손에 맡겨졌을 당시에는 매우 유용했다. 포로 생활이 홍수처럼 모든 것을 혼란에 빠뜨렸으므로, 흩어져 절망하던 그들은 지파와 가문의 구별을 잃을 위험에 처해 있었다. 따라서 이 기록은 앗수르에 사로잡혀 갔던 몇몇 지파의 옛 경계표까지 되살린다. 또한 유대인들이 오랫동안 소홀히 했던 거룩한 기록을 연구하여 조상들의 이름과 가문의 기원을 찾아보도록 이끌었을 것이다. 2. 이 족보들은 지금도 성경 역사를 밝히는 데 유익하며, 특히 메시아의 계보를 분명히 해 준다. 이로써 우리의 복되신 구주가 그에 관한 앞선 예언대로 다윗의 자손이요 유다의 자손이며 아브라함의 자손이고 아담의 자손임이 드러난다. 이 명부가 보존된 목적이신 그분이 이제 오셨으므로, 그 뒤 유대인들은 모든 족보를 잃어버렸다. 가장 거룩한 제사장 족보마저 잊혀서, 오늘날 세상 어느 누구도 자신이 아론의 집에 속한다고 입증할 수 없게 되었다. 건물이 세워지면 비계는 철거된다. 약속된 씨가 오시면 그에게로 이어지던 계보도 끊어진다.

이 장에는 창세기의 모든 족보가 야곱에 이르기까지 요약되어 있다. I. 창 5장에서 가져온 아담부터 노아와 그의 아들들까지의 계보(대상 1:1-4). II. 창 10장에서 가져온, 땅을 다시 채운 노아의 아들들의 후손(대상 1:5-23). III. 창 11장에서 가져온 셈부터 아브라함까지의 계보(대상 1:24-28). IV. 창 25장에서 가져온 이스마엘과 그두라가 낳은 아브라함의 아들들의 후손(대상 1:29-35). V. 창 36장에서 가져온 에서의 후손(대상 1:36-54). 이 내용들은 창세기에서 간략히 다루어졌던 듯하다. 그러므로 학교의 원칙에 따라, 전에 제대로 배우지 못한 수업을 다시 공부하게 된 것이다.

역대상·하 서론

1. 열왕기 두 책과 마찬가지로 역대기 두 책도 본래는 하나의 저작이었다. 그것이 두 “책”으로 나뉜 것은 칠십인역 번역자들에게서 비롯되며, 그 구분은 제롬에게 받아들여졌고, 그에게서 서방 교회의 여러 분파로 전해졌다. 히브리어 성경에서 이 저작의 제목은 문자적으로 “날마다의 행적” 또는 “사건들”을 뜻한다. 이 제목은 본래 여러 왕의 통치 기록에 붙여졌으나, 뒤에는 그러한 개별 서술들을 바탕으로 구성된 일반 역사서에도 적용되었다.

칠십인역 번역자들은 이 저작의 내용과 성경 역사서들 가운데서 차지하는 위치에 더 적합하다고 여긴 제목을 대신 붙였다. 그것은 Paraleipomena, 곧 “빠진 것들”이라는 뜻의 이름이었다. 이 명칭은 역대기가 사무엘서와 열왕기를 보충하는 책, 곧 주로 앞선 역사 서술의 누락된 부분을 채우기 위해 기록된 책이라는 뜻을 나타내려는 것이었다.

영어 제목 “Chronicles”(불가타에서 유래함)는 본래 시간과 관련된 의미를 지닌 말이다. 그러나 실제 용법에서는 연대기적 요소가 특별히 두드러지는 역사라기보다, 단순하고 원초적인 형태의 역사 서술을 가리킨다.

2. “역대기”는 구약의 다른 어떤 책도 차지하지 않는 독특한 위치에 있다. 그것은 역사서이지만 새로운 역사는 아니다. 저자는 이미 다른 이들이 밟아 간 땅을 다시 지나간다.

그가 그렇게 한 목적은 그가 염두에 두었던 실제적 목표, 곧 자기 시대의 특별한 어려움에 대응하려는 데서 충분히 드러난다. 백성은 얼마 전 포로 생활에서 돌아와 성전을 재건했으나, 포로 생활로 끊어진 옛 민족 생활의 실마리들을 아직 다시 모으지 못하고 있었다. 그러므로 그들은 먼저 자기들의 전체 역사, 세상 사건들의 지난 전 과정, 그리고 땅의 민족들 가운데서 자기들이 차지한 위치를 상기해야 했다. 이것은 족보들을 통해 간략하고 건조하지만 충분하게 이루어졌다. 족보는 동방 사람들에게 언제나 특별한 매력을 지녀 왔다. 이어서 그들은 조직된 민족으로서의 자기들의 과거, 곧 민족 생활의 중심에 고정된 거처를 가진 종교를 지닌 정착 백성으로서의 과거를 더욱 특별히 상기해야 했다.

저자는 동포들의 장래 번영 전체가 성전 예배의 보존, 제사장들과 레위인들의 적절한 유지, “반열”의 정규적 확립, 그리고 성전의 여러 직무를 레위 가족들 사이에 정당하게 배분하는 일과 결부되어 있다고 굳게 확신했다. 그러므로 그는 다윗, 솔로몬, 그리고 후대 유다 왕들 아래서 이루어진 성전의 과거 역사에 동포들의 주의를 돌렸다. 그는 거의 모든 경우에 왕이 민족의 종교에 대해 어떤 태도를 취했는가에 따라 현세적 보상과 징벌이 정확히 뒤따랐음을 지적했다. 그 시대의 어법으로 기록되고, 최근 사건들에 대한 빈번한 암시와 가르치려는 도덕적 교훈의 끊임없는 반복을 담은, 이전 전체 역사의 압축된 조망과도 같은 이러한 과거의 그림은 새로 돌아왔고 아직 안정되지 못한 백성에게 오래된 서술들보다 훨씬 더 강하고 깊은 영향을 주기에 알맞았다. 역대기는 말하자면 포로기 이후의 민족과 포로기 이전의 민족 사이를 갈라놓은 골짜기를 이어 주었다. 그것은 그 민족의 운명이 그들 자신의 손에 있으며, 종교적 신실함이 반드시 하나님의 복을 확보한다는 사실을 보여 줌으로써, 민족 생활을 회복하고 소망을 되살리며 높은 포부를 북돋는 데 크게 도움을 주었음이 틀림없다.

3. 역대기가 포로 생활에서 돌아온 뒤에 작성되었다는 것은 그 결말 부분뿐 아니라 다른 여러 부분에서도 분명하다.

문체의 증거는 내용이 제공하는 증거와 일치한다. 그 표현 방식은 포로기 이후에 기록된 책들인 에스라, 느헤미야, 에스더의 표현 방식과 비슷하다. 거기에는 아람어 형태가 많이 나타나며, 적어도 하나의 페르시아어 유래 단어도 있다. 그러므로 그 연대는 538 B.C.보다 이르기는 어렵지만, 그보다 상당히 뒤일 수도 있다. 역대기와 에스라 사이의 매우 밀접한 문체적 관련성은 두 책이 같은 시기에, 더 나아가 같은 사람에 의해 작성되었을 가능성을 높인다. 많은 사람이 생각하듯 에스라가 저자라면, 그 연대는 435 B.C.보다 훨씬 뒤일 수 없다. 에스라는 아마 그 무렵에 죽었기 때문이다. 이 저작의 내용이나 문체에는 450-435 B.C.라는 연대를 그럴듯하지 않게 만드는 것이 없다. 이보다 뒤의 것처럼 보이는 역대상 3:23-24의 족보는 후대의 첨가일 수 있기 때문이다.

4. 역대기의 저자는 자기 권위 자료로 서로 다른 두 부류의 저작을 인용한다.

(a) 그가 가장 자주 언급하는 것은 일반 역사서, 곧 “이스라엘과 유다 열왕기”이다. 이것은 열왕기에서 계속 언급되는 두 역사서, 곧 “이스라엘 왕들의 역대지략”과 “유다 왕들의 역대지략”을 하나로 결합한 편찬물이었다. 두 자료를 하나로 묶는 것이 편리하다고 여겨졌던 것이다.

(b) 그가 인용한 다른 저작들은 12부 또는 13부로 이루어진 역사서들, 곧 민족 연대기의 특정 부분을 다룬 선지자들의 저작이었다. 이 저작들 가운데 어느 것도 그 정확한 성격은 우리에게 알려져 있지 않다. 그러나 그것들이 인용되는 방식은 대체로 저자들이 살던 시대의 역사, 특히 종교사를 어느 정도 자세히 다루었을 가능성을 보여 준다. 그것들은 독립된 작품들, 곧 개별 선지자들이 자기 시대의 사건들에 대해 쓴 단행 논문들로 볼 수 있다. 그 가운데 어떤 것은 때때로 우리의 “열왕기”가 아니라 “이스라엘과 유다 열왕기”에 옮겨졌고, 나머지는 여러 세기 동안 “열왕기”와 나란히 존재하면서 역대기 저자가 우리에게 전하는 특별한 정보의 많은 부분을 제공했다.

또한 저자가 앞선 역사적 성경 전체, 특히 우리가 가진 형태의 사무엘서와 열왕기를 사용했다는 충분한 증거도 있다. 역대상 1-8장의 주요 자료는 창세기부터 룻기까지의 앞선 성경이며, 여기에 가족 족보들과 거의 모든 이스라엘 지파에서 “족장들”이 세심하게 보존한 여러 중요한 가문사 같은 사적 자료에서 나온 진술들이 보충되었다. 역대상 10-27장의 주요 자료는 사무엘서이고, 역대하 1-36장의 자료는 열왕기이다. 다만 열왕기는 주요 자료라고 하기는 어렵다(난외 참조와 주해를 비교하라). 그러나 저자는 언제나 이 자료들 외에 또 다른 권위 자료를 가지고 있다. 사울의 죽음부터 예루살렘의 함락에 이르기까지 유대 역사 가운데 그가 지금은 사라진 어떤 자료에서 끌어낸 새로운 사실로 밝히지 않은 부분은 없다.

5. 저작권의 통일성을 가리키는 지표들은 다양성을 가리키는 지표들보다 우세하며, 전체 저작이 한 사람의 동일한 저자에게서 나왔다는 결론으로 이끈다. 역대상 1-9장의 도입부에서 매우 강하게 드러나는 족보적 경향은 저자의 두드러진 특징이며, 그의 서술 가운데 더 순수하게 역사적인 부분에서도 계속 눈에 띈다. 반대로, 이 저작의 단순한 족보 부분도 역사 장들을 움직이는 동일한 정신으로 관통되어 있으며, 더 나아가 저자 특유의 표현들로 가득하다.

역사 서술 부분(역대상 10장-역대하 36장)이 한 사람의 손에서 나왔다는 것은 거의 의심할 수 없다. 전체에는 뚜렷하게 교훈적인 하나의 어조가 흐른다. 각각의 두드러진 재난과 성공은 의로운 자에게 보상하고 악을 행하는 자를 징벌하시는 하나님의 섭리의 작용에 가장 직접적인 방식으로 돌려진다. 구성 방식도 어디서나 동일하다. 사무엘서와 열왕기를 서술의 기초로 주로 사용하고, 이미 앞서 서술된 것은 축약하며, 독자에게 다른 방식으로 알려져 있는 중요한 사실들은 생략하고, 때로는 세밀하고 중요하다기보다 흥미로운 새로운 사실들을, 또 때로는 앞선 역사가들이 그것들을 지나쳤다는 것이 놀라울 만큼 인상적인 사실들을 덧붙인다.

6. 역대기가 문장 중간에서 갑작스럽게 끝난다는 사실은, 그것이 본래 기록된 형태 그대로 우리에게 전해진 것이 아니라는 데 대한 반박할 수 없는 논거이다.

그리고 현재 역대기 사본들의 마지막 구절이 에스라서의 시작 부분에 다시 나타난다는 사실은, 두 책 사이에 문체와 어조의 매우 밀접한 유사성이 있다는 의심할 수 없는 사실과 함께 고려할 때, 자연스럽게 한 설명을 제시한다. 일부 뛰어난 비평가들이 받아들인 그 설명은 역대기와 에스라가 본래 하나의 저작이었고 나중에 분리되었다는 것이다. 그 분리는 아마 포로기 이후 시대의 역사를 연대순으로 배열하려는 요구에서 생겨났을 것이다.

7. 역대기 본문의 상태는 만족스럽다고 하기 어렵다. 여러 이독이 자주 나타나며, 특히 인명과 지명에서 그렇다. 누락도 발견되는데, 특히 족보에서 그러하다. 숫자들은 때로 서로 모순되고, 때로는 사무엘서나 열왕기의 더 그럴듯한 숫자들과 모순되며, 때로는 터무니없이 커서 정당하게 의심을 받는다.

그러나 이 저작은 더 심각한 성격의 결함에서는 자유롭다. 통일성은 깨지지 않았으며, 우리는 거의 모든 점에서 이 저작을 저자의 손에서 나온 그대로 가지고 있다고 믿을 충분한 이유가 있다.

8. 사무엘서와 열왕기의 병행 역사와 비교할 때, 역대기의 역사는 세 가지 주요 특징으로 규정된다.

(a) 종교의 외적 요소, 성전 예배의 세부 사항, 제사장들과 레위인들의 여러 기능, 반열의 배열 등과 같은 것들에 더 많이 머무는 경향이다. 이 때문에 역대기의 역사는 “교회적”이라고 불렸고, 사무엘서와 열왕기의 역사는 “정치적”이라고 불렸다. 이러한 경향은 그 신빙성을 떨어뜨리거나 그 역사를 신뢰할 가치가 없게 만들지 않는다.

(b) 두드러진 족보적 성향과, 서술된 사건들에 참여한 사람들의 이름을 기록으로 남기려는 욕구이다.

(c) 역사의 모든 사건을 하나님의 역사하심에 더 지속적이고 공개적이며 직접적으로 돌리는 경향, 특히 모든 큰 재난이나 구원을 하나님 섭리께서 징벌하거나 보상하신 군주 또는 민족의 선행이나 악행과 더 분명하게 연결하는 경향이다.

역대기를 사무엘서나 열왕기보다 덜 신뢰할 만한 것으로 볼 이유는 없다. 논란이 되는 지점들, “레위적 정신,” 모순, 이른바 오류 등을 충분히 고려하더라도, 일반적으로 말해 저자의 정직성이나 그의 저작의 진정성을 훼손하지 않는다. 이 책은 일부 구성 요소를 제외하면 모든 부분에서 정당하게 진정한 것으로 여길 수 있다. 그 구성 요소들은 때때로 본문 손상을 겪은 듯하지만, 같은 정도로 오래된 다른 책들의 구성 요소들보다 더 큰 정도는 아니다. 이러한 흠에서 하나님께서는 그분의 말씀을 자유롭게 보존하기를 기뻐하지 않으셨다. 오늘날 그러한 흠의 발생이 나머지 서술의 진정성에 아주 조금이라도 영향을 미친다고 주장하기는 어려울 것이다.

역대기의 문체는 열왕기보다 더 단순하고 덜 고양되어 있다. 역대상 16장의 다윗의 시와 역대하 6장의 솔로몬의 기도를 제외하면, 전체는 산문적이고 평이하며 균일하다. 열왕기에서처럼 특별히 인상적인 장들은 없다. 그러나 그것은 회복된 민족에게 말하며 그 민족을 고무하고 활력을 불어넣으려 한다는 점에서 덜 음울하다. 바벨론 물가에서 울던 포로 백성은 열왕기에서 자기들의 슬픈 역사를 읽는 것이 적절했다. 해방된 민족은 새로운 삶을 희망 가운데 시작하면서, 역대기에서 자기 과거의 회고를 발견했으며, 그것은 그들이 들어서고 있던 전진의 길에서 그들을 앞으로 돕기에 알맞은 것이었다.

역대상 1장

아담에서 노아까지의 계보. 노아에서 아브라함까지, 4-27절. 아브라함의 아들들, 이스마엘과 이삭. 이스마엘의 아들들. 에서의 아들들. 에돔 왕들의 목록. 에돔 족장들의 목록.

역대상 서론

이 책과 그 다음 책은 유대인들에게 한 권의 책으로 헤아려졌으니, 둘째 책 끝에 있는 마소라 주기에서 그것이 드러나며, 오리게네스 (a) 와 히에로니무스 (b) 도 그렇게 단언한다. 또 고대인들 (c) 은 이 책들을 우리가 그리하듯 「역대기」라 불렀다. 그러나 이 책들은 앞선 책들에서 그토록 자주 언급되는 이스라엘과 유다 왕들의 역대지략과는 다르다. 거기서 그 역대지략에 있다고 언급된 여러 사항이 여기에는 나오지 않기 때문이다. 다만 여기 기록된 많은 것이 신적 지도 아래 그 자료에서 취해졌다는 점은 의심할 여지가 없다. 그리스어 역본에서, 또 그 뒤를 따라 불가타 라틴어 역본에서 이 책들은 「파랄리포메나」(Paralipomena)라 불리는데, 곧 지나쳐 버렸거나 빠뜨린 것들이라는 뜻이다. 사무엘서와 열왕기에 나오지 않는 여러 일화를 담고 있기 때문이다. 이 책들의 히브리어 제목은 「디브레 하야밈」(Dibre Hayamim), 곧 날들의 말들, 일지 또는 일기이며, 그리스인들이 「에페메리데스」(Ephemerides)라 부르는 것이다. 다만 「야밈」(yamim)이 때로 해를 뜻하므로 「연대기」(annals)라 이름할 수도 있다. 그래서 아랍어 표제는 이러하다.

"연대기의 책들;"

또 이 책들이 주로 유다 왕들을 다루므로 시리아어 표제는 이러하다.

"유다 왕들의 시대에 행해진 일들의 책."

타르굼의 표제는 이러하다.

"족보의 책, 곧 세상의 날들로부터 있어 온 날들의 말들;"

처음 열 장이 아담에서 시작하는 족보로 이루어져 있기 때문이다. 이 책들의 영감받은 기록자는 유대인이 바벨론 포로에서 돌아온 뒤에 살았음이 틀림없으니, 그가 유다의 왕들과 방백들의 족보를 그때를 넘어서까지 이어 내려가기 때문이다. 1 Chronicles 3:17. 유대인과 그리스도인은 일반적으로 에스라가 이 책들의 기록자라고 생각하는데, 그가 살았던 시대가 이에 부합한다. 또한 이 책들 중 마지막 책이 그의 이름으로 된 책의 첫머리와 같은 말로 끝나는 데서도 그렇게 보인다. 그리하여 탈무드 학자들 (d) 은 에스라가 자기 책을 기록하였고, 역대기의 족보를 자기 대까지, 곧 「벨로」(Velo), 즉 "그에게 형제들이 있었다"(2 Chronicles 21:2)라는 말까지 기록했다고 말한다. 또 야르키는 그가 영감받은 선지자들인 학개와 스가랴와 말라기의 손 또는 그들을 통하여 이 책들을 기록했다고 단언한다. 다만 어떤 유대인 저술가들 (e) 은 이 책들이 일부는 그가, 일부는 느헤미야가 기록했다고 여긴다. 곧 2 Chronicles 21:2 까지는 모두 에스라가 기록하였고 나머지는 느헤미야가 기록했다는 것이다. 킴히는 에스라가 이 책들의 최초 저자요 기록자가 아니라고 생각한다. 유다 왕들과 이스라엘 왕들의 역대지략과 연대기가 그보다 앞서 따로 기록되어 있었고, 그는 다만 그것들을 교정하였으며 대회당 사람들과 더불어 족보를 덧붙이고 그것들을 성경의 정경 안에 넣었을 뿐이라는 것이다 (f). 스피노자 (g) 는 유다 마카베오가 성전을 회복한 뒤에 이 책들이 기록되었다고 상상한다. 기록자가 에스라 시대에 어떤 가문들이 예루살렘에 거하였는지 말하고 1 Chronicles 9:1, 문지기들을 언급하는데 1 Chronicles 9:17, 그중 둘이 Nehemiah 11:19 에 언급된다는 이유에서다. 마치 에스라가 자기 당대에 살던 가문들을 서술할 수 없었다거나 성전 문지기들의 이름을 댈 수 없었다는 듯이 말이다. 성전은 그의 시대에 완공되고 봉헌되었는데도 그러하다. Ezra 6:15. 그러나 어떻든 이 책들의 진정성은 의심할 것이 없다. 유대인들이 언제나 이 책들을 정경 성경의 일부로 인정해 왔을 뿐 아니라, 멜리토 (h) 와 오리게네스 (i) 의 목록에서 드러나듯 고대 그리스도인들도 그리하였으며, 그뿐 아니라 신약에 이 책들을 가리키는 분명한 참조가 있기 때문이다. 복음서 기자들이 제시한 그리스도의 족보는 이 책들에서 구성되었다. 어떤 이들이 살핀 대로 Revelation 5:12 의 송영은 다윗이 사용한 것 1 Chronicles 29:11 에 매우 가깝고, Acts 7:48 의 구절들은 2 Chronicles 2:5 에 표현된 뜻을 담고 있다. 이 책들의 용도와 의도는 주로 유다 왕국에 대하여, 특별히 열 지파에서 갈라져 나온 뒤의 유다 왕국과 그 왕들에 대하여 앞선 책들이 준 것보다 더 넓은 서술을 제공하려는 데 있으니, 이 책들 중 마지막 책이 그러하다. 그리고 특별히 이 책들은 그리스도의 족보를 확정하여, 메시아가 어느 지파와 어느 가문에서 오셨는지, 곧 그가 유다 지파에서 그리고 다윗의 집 왕들에게서 나셨음이 분명하고 명백해지게 한다. 이 첫째 책이 그러하다. 두 책은 모두 아담에서부터 유대인이 바벨론에서의 포로 생활에서 건짐을 받기까지의 역사를 담고 있다. 호팅거 (k) 에 따르면 이 중 첫째 책은 A. M. 2985년까지 이르고, 뒤의 책은 사백칠십이 년의 역사다. 어셔 주교 (l) 에 따르면 앞의 책은 2990년의 경과를 담고 있고, 뒤의 책은 사백칠십팔 년을 담고 있다.

(a) Apud Eusch. Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 25. (b) Ad Dominionem, tom. 3. fol. 7. C. (c) Hieron. Praefat. in lib. Reg. tom. 3. fol. 6. B. (d) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 15. 1. (e) Shalssalet Hakabala, Abarbinel in Josuam, fol. 3. 3. (f) Vid. Buxtorf. de Punct. Antiqu. par. 1. p. 182. (g) Tract. Theolog. Politic. c. 10. p. 184. (h) Apud Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 4. c. 26. (i) Apud ib. l. 6. c. 25. (k) Thesaur. Philolog. l. 2. c. 1. p. 514, 515. (l) Annal. Vet. Test. p. 56. (m) Tiberias, c. 14.

역대상 1장 서론

이 장은 아담에서 노아까지 족장들의 족보 1 Chronicles 1:1, 노아의 아들들과 아브라함까지 이르는 그들의 후손의 족보 1 Chronicles 1:5, 아브라함의 아들들과 그 후손의 족보 1 Chronicles 1:28, 에서의 아들들의 족보 1 Chronicles 1:35, 그리고 에돔에서 다스린 왕들과 족장들의 족보 1 Chronicles 1:43 을 우리에게 제시한다.

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES.

I. Chronicles.

BY

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

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE BOOKS OF THE CHRONICLES.

§ 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 1 Chronicles 8, 9) his horizon narrows at once from all Israel to the southern kingdom only (Benjamin, Judah, Jerusalem). 1 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 (1 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 exagge-rating the subjective and unhistorical tendency of the i 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.

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES.

The abrupt opening of the narrative with a series of proper names presupposes that the reader is already acquainted with their historic import. The chronicler intends to give a synopsis of the archæology of man, as recorded in the book of Genesis, by way of fixing the place of Israel in the great human family. Arabian and monkish annalists of the middle ages have followed his precedent, at least so far as regards the external form of their histories. William of Malmesbury, for instance, does not hesitate to trace the line of the Saxon kings to Adam; and the chroniclers of Spain have derived their monarchs from Tubal, a grandson of Noah. Such inventions, of course, bear only an artificial resemblance to the Biblical records, which are undoubtedly survivals of a remote antiquity, a fact which should suggest caution in theorising upon their interpretation.

Chapter 1. falls naturally into three sections. (1) The ten generations of the first age of humanity, with a table of races and countries, given in genealogical form according to ancient conceptions (1Chronicles 1:1-23). (2) The ten generations after the Flood, from Shem to Abraham, the second age of man, with a list of the races claiming descent from Abraham (1Chronicles 1:24-42). (3) A catalogue of the kings of Edom anterior to the Israelite monarchy and of the tribal chieftains of that country (1Chronicles 1:43-54).

1Chronicles 1:1-4 are an abstract of the fifth chapter of Genesis. (See the Notes there.) The arrangement of the names, in three triads and a quartette, is perhaps mnemonic. In our translation the Hebrew spelling is followed more closely here than in Genesis 5 Sheth, Enosh, Kenan, Jered, Henoch are nearer the original than Seth, Enos, Cainan, Jared, Enoch (the spelling of the LXX).

대상 1:1-23.

아담에서 노아까지의 계보.

1. 아담 등--"낳았다"라는 말은 생략되어 있으나 이해되어야 한다. 가족 중에서 직계 계승 순서에 들어가는 한 사람만 언급되어 있다.

난외 참조와 주해를 비교하라.

아담, 셋, 에노스 - 곧 아담은 셋 또는 세트의 아버지였다는 뜻이다. 셋은 에노스의 아버지였고, 에노스는 게난의 아버지였으며, 이런 식으로 이어진다. 가인과 아벨, 또는 아담의 다른 아들들에 대해서는 아무 언급도 하지 않는다. 역사가가 제시하려 한 것은 아담에서 노아까지 이어지는 한 계열의 족장들이었다. 가인이나 아벨의 후손을 언급하는 것은 쓸모없는 일이었을 것이다. 노아가 그들 중 어느 한 사람의 직접 후손이 아니었기 때문이다. 게다가 그들의 모든 후손은 홍수 때 멸망했고, 아담 가문 가운데 노아와 그의 자녀들 외에는 아무도 남지 않았다. 그리고 이들에게서 땅의 모든 민족이 나왔다.

"역대상 첫째 책 첫째 장 첫째 절"을 본문으로 삼아 각 이름에서 신비를 찾아내고, 그것을 모두 합치면 사람의 원래 완전성, 뒤이은 타락, 그 결과로 온 비참함, 그리고 최종 회복에 대한 완전한 전망이 된다고 말할 수 있는 사람들은 얼마나 학식이 깊어야 하겠는가! 오 사람과 도시의 이름을 깊이 설명하는 이들이여! 왜 그대들의 지혜의 열쇠를 우리에게 주지 않고, 주석을 써서 세상을 밝히지 않는가?