圣经注释书

本章及此后数章重述了我们在神圣历史中迄今为止所见过的谱系，并将其全部汇集一处，还作了相当多的补充。我们或许会受到试探，认为这些谱系若不曾被记录下来就好了，因为将它们与其他平行经文对照时，会发现其中有些差异，我们几乎难以满意地加以调和；然而我们不可因此绊倒在圣言上，而当感谢神，因为与救恩相关的事已经足够清晰明了。既然智慧的神认为应当将这些事为我们记录下来，我们就不该略过不读。全部圣经都是有益的，尽管并非各处都同样有益；即使是那些不像其他部分那样提供丰富训诲材料的经文段落，我们也可以从中获得美好的思想和默想。这些谱系：1. 在当时曾大有功用——当它们在此被保存下来，并交到从巴比伦归回的犹太人手中时；因为被掳如同洪水一般，使一切陷入混乱，他们在那离散与绝望之中，大有丧失各支派和家族区分之虞。因此，这记录恢复了古老的界标，甚至包括那些被掳到亚述的若干支派。或许这还能激发犹太人研读那曾被忽略的圣经，好在其中寻见自己先祖的名字和家族的渊源。2. 它们至今仍有其功用，可以阐明圣经的叙事，尤其是澄清弥赛亚的家谱，借此显明我们蒙福的救主正如在他以先的预言所言，是大卫的子孙、犹大的子孙、亚伯拉罕的子孙、亚当的子孙。如今，那为保存这些谱系而等候的"应许的后裔"已经来到，犹太人此后反倒完全丧失了一切家谱，甚至祭司的谱系——那最为神圣的——也已失传，他们不知道世上可有哪一个人能证明自己是亚伦家的人。建筑既已建成，脚手架便被撤去。应许的后裔既已降临，那条引导人归向他的血脉之线便就此断绝。本章是创世记中直到雅各为止全部谱系的摘要。I. 从亚当到挪亚及其众子的世系，出自创世记第五章，代上1:1-4。II. 挪亚众子的后裔，地上人口由此重新繁衍，出自创世记第十章，代上1:5-23。III. 从闪到亚伯拉罕的世系，出自创世记第十一章，代上1:24-28。IV. 以实玛利的后裔，以及亚伯拉罕从基土拉所生之子的后裔，出自创世记第二十五章，代上1:29-35。V. 以扫的后裔，出自创世记第三十六章，代上1:36-54。这些谱系在创世记中可能只是草草带过；因此，按照学堂的规矩，凡是没有学好的功课，便要我们重新温习一遍。

历代志上、下引言

1. 与列王纪上下两卷一样，历代志上下两卷原初也构成一部单一著作，其分为两「卷」可追溯至七十士译本的译者；这一划分被耶柔米采纳，又从他传到西方教会的各个分支。在希伯来文圣经中，这部著作的标题按字面意思是「每日的行事」或「事件」；这标题原初用于指诸王统治的记事，后来也应用于由这些个别叙述编成的一般历史著作。

七十士译本的译者换上了一个他们认为更契合该书内容及其在圣经历史书中所占位置的标题，即Paraleipomena，意为「遗漏之事」——这名称意在表明历代志是对撒母耳记和列王记的补充，即主要是为补足较早历史的遗漏而写。

英文标题Chronicles（源自武加大译本）原是一个主要与时间相关的术语；但在实际用法中，它所指的乃是一种简单而原始的历史体裁，而非年代因素特别突出的历史。

2. 「历代志」在旧约中占有与其他任何书都不同的独特位置。它是历史，却不是新的历史。作者所涉足的，是别人已经走过的地面。

他这样做的目的，从他心中的实际目标，即应对他自己时代的特殊困难，已充分显明。百姓刚从被掳中归回，重建了圣殿，却尚未重新收拢被掳所斩断的旧民族生活之线索。因此，他们首先被提醒自己的全部历史、世间事变的整个过往进程，以及他们自己在地上列国中所占的位置。这件事藉着族谱完成，虽简略枯燥，却足够了；族谱对东方人向来有特别的吸引力。接着，他们更被特别提醒自己作为一个有组织之民族的过去——一个拥有以民族生活中心为固定居所之宗教的定居民族的过去。

作者坚信，同胞未来全部的兴盛，都与圣殿事奉的保存、祭司和利未人的妥善供养、「班次」的正规设立，以及圣殿各项职事在利未家族之间的正当分配紧密相连。因此，他把同胞的注意力引到大卫、所罗门及后来犹大诸王之下圣殿的历史，指出几乎在每一个实例中，现世的赏罚都精确地随着王对本民族宗教所采取的态度而临到。这样一幅过去的图画——对整个以往历史的一种浓缩观照，以当日的习用语写成，频繁暗指晚近事件，并不断重复所要教导的道德教训——比起古老的叙述，更能强烈而深刻地影响这新近归回、尚未安定下来的百姓。历代志可以说弥合了被掳后与被掳前两个民族之间的鸿沟：它向民族显明，其命运掌握在自己手中，宗教上的忠贞必确保神的赐福；这必定大大有助于民族生活的恢复、盼望的复兴和崇高志向的激励。

3. 历代志写成于被掳归回之后，这不仅从其结尾段落可以看出，也从该书的其他部分显明。

文体的证据与内容所提供的证据相符。其措辞与以斯拉记、尼希米记和以斯帖记相似，这几卷书都是被掳后写成的。书中有多处亚兰语形式，至少有一个源自波斯语的词。因此其年代很难早于538 B.C.，却可能晚得多。历代志与以斯拉记之间文体上的密切关联，使两书很可能同期写成，甚至可能出自同一人之手。如果如许多人所想，以斯拉是作者，那么年代不会比435 B.C.晚多少，因为以斯拉大约死于那时。本书的内容或文体没有任何东西使450-435 B.C.这一年代显得不可信；因为1 Chronicles 3:23-24的家谱看来晚于此年代，它可能是后来添加的。

4. 历代志的作者引用两类不同的著作为其权威资料：

(a) 他最常引用的是一部通史——「以色列和犹大列王记」。这是由列王记中不断提及的两部史书——「以色列诸王编年记」和「犹大诸王编年记」——合编而成，把两者合成一书被认为较为便利。

(b) 他所引用的其他著作是十二部或十三部的历史书，即论述民族编年史特定部分的众先知的著作。这些著作的确切性质无一为我们所知；但从它们被引用的方式看，它们大部分可能以相当篇幅论述了其作者时代的历史，尤其是宗教史。它们可视为独立的著作——个别先知所写、关于其时代事件的专论；其中偶有一种未被移入我们的「列王记」，而是移入了「以色列和犹大列王记」；其余的则与「列王记」并存了数个世纪，为历代志的作者提供了他传给我们的大量特别信息。

此外，也有充分证据表明作者使用了全部较早的历史圣经，尤其是我们现有形式的撒母耳记和列王记。1 Chronicles 1-8的主要资料，是从创世记到路得记的较早圣经，辅以取自私人来源的陈述，如家族族谱，以及几乎所有以色列支派中「族长」精心保存的家族史之许多重要细节；1 Chronicles 10-27的一个主要资料是撒母耳记；而列王记则是2 Chronicles 1-36的一个资料来源，尽管很难说是主要来源（参较旁注及注释）。但作者在这些之外总还有别的权威；从扫罗之死到耶路撒冷陷落，犹太历史的任何一个段落，他都用了取自某个现已亡佚之资料的新事实加以说明。

5. 指向作者统一性的迹象多于指向差异性的迹象，并导出如下结论：整部著作出自同一位作者之手。在1 Chronicles 1-9的导论部分中如此强烈显明的族谱倾向，是这位作者的显著特征，在他叙述中更纯粹属于历史的部分里也不断显露出来。反过来，著作中单纯的族谱部分也贯穿着激励历史各章的同一精神，而且充满作者特有的用语。

历史叙述部分（1 Chronicles 10至2 Chronicles 36）出自一手，几乎无可怀疑。一种鲜明的训诲语调贯穿全书——每一次显著灾祸与成功，都以最直接的方式归于赏义罚恶之神护佑的作为。各处的写作方法也一致：主要以撒母耳记和列王记为叙述的基础，压缩先前已叙述过的内容，省略读者可另行得知的重要事实，并添加新事实——这些事实有时琐碎，好奇多于重要，有时又如此惊人，以致早期史家竟把它们略过令人诧异。

6. 历代志在一句话中间戛然而止，这是一个无可反驳的论据，证明它不是以最初写成的形式传给我们的。

而现今历代志抄本的结尾段落在以斯拉记开篇处再度出现，这一点与两书之间文体和语调极为相似这一无可置疑的事实合观，自然引出如下解释——一些最优秀的批评家已接受这一解释——即历代志与以斯拉记原为一部著作，后来才被分开；这一分开大概出于想把被掳后时期的历史按年代顺序编排的意愿。

7. 历代志的文本状况远不能令人满意。异文频繁出现，尤见于人名和地名；发现有脱落，尤见于族谱；数字有时自相矛盾，有时与撒母耳记或列王记中较合理的数字相抵触，有时大得离谱，因而理应受到怀疑。

然而，本书没有更严重性质的缺陷。全书统一性未受破坏，而且我们有充分理由相信，我们在几乎所有方面所拥有的，正是它从作者手中出来时的样子。

8. 与撒母耳记和列王记的平行历史相比，历代志的历史有三个主要特征：

(a) 更倾向于流连于宗教的外在层面、圣殿敬拜的细节、祭司和利未人的各样职分、班次的安排等等。因此，历代志的历史被称为「教会性的」，而撒母耳记和列王记的历史则被称为「政治性的」。这一倾向并不损害其可信度，也不使该历史不值得信赖。

(b) 明显的族谱偏好，以及把所叙述事件中涉及之人的名字记录下来的愿望；

(c) 更持续、更公开、更直接地把历史的一切事件归于神的作为，尤其更明白地把每一次大灾祸或大拯救，与神护佑所惩罚或奖赏的君王或民族的善恶行为联系起来。

没有理由认为历代志不如撒母耳记或列王记可信。对争议之点、「利未精神」、矛盾、所谓错误等的正当考虑，就大体而言，并不损害作者的诚实或其著作的真实性。除其中某些组成部分外，本书在各部分都可正当地视为真实的。这些部分看来偶有损坏，但程度几乎不比同等古老的其他书卷更深。神并没有乐意使祂的话语免于此类瑕疵。今日大概不会有人主张，这些瑕疵的出现对其余叙述的真实性有丝毫影响。

历代志的文体比列王记更简单，也不那么高华。除了1 Chronicles 16中大卫的诗篇和2 Chronicles 6中所罗门的祷告以外，全书都是散文式的、平实的、划一的。没有像列王记中那样特别引人注目的章节；但它较少阴郁，因为是写给复兴之民族的，旨在激励和鼓舞他们。在巴比伦河边哭泣的被掳之民，宜于在列王记中读到他们哀伤的历史；而得释放的民族满怀盼望地开始新生活时，则在历代志中找到了对其过去的回顾，这回顾正适于在他们正踏上的进步之路上助其前行。

1 Chronicles 1

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.

The genealogy of Adam to Noah, 1 Chronicles 1:1-3. Of Noah to Abraham, vv. 4-27. The sons of Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac, 1 Chronicles 1:28. The sons of Ishmael, 1 Chronicles 1:29, 1 Chronicles 1:33. The sons of Esau, 1 Chronicles 1:34-42. A list of the kings of Edom, 1 Chronicles 1:43-50. A list of the dukes of Edom, 1 Chronicles 1:51-54.

INTRODUCTION TO 1 CHRONICLES

This and the following book were reckoned by the Jews as one book, as appears by the Masoretic note at the end of the second book, and as is affirmed by Origen (a) and Jerom (b); and they were by the ancients (c) called Chronicles, as they are by us; but they are different from the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel and Judah, so often mentioned in the preceding books, seeing several things there referred to, as in them, are not to be found here; though no doubt many things here recorded were taken from thence under a divine direction. In the Greek version, and so in the Vulgate Latin version after that, they are called "Paralipomena", that is, things passed over or omitted, because they contain several anecdotes which are not to be found in the books of Samuel and Kings. The Hebrew title of them is, "Dibre Hayamim", words of days, day books or diaries, and what the Greeks call "Ephemerides"; though, as "yamim" sometimes signifies years, they may be named "annals"; and so the Arabic inscription is,

"the Books of Annals;''

and because they chiefly respect the kings of Judah, the Syriac inscription is,

"the Book of the Things that were done in the Times of the Kings of Judah.''

The Targum is,

"the Book of Genealogies, the Words of Days, which were from the Days of the World;''

because the first ten chapters consist of genealogies beginning from Adam. The inspired penman of these books must live after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, since he carries down the genealogy of the kings and princes of Judah beyond that time, 1 Chronicles 3:17. It is generally thought by the Jews and Christians that Ezra was the writer of them, with which agrees the age in which he lived; and as it may seem, from the last of these books ending with the same words with which that under his name begins: so the Talmudists (d) say, that Ezra wrote his own book, and the genealogy of the chronicles unto his own, or unto Velo, "and he had brethren", 2 Chronicles 21:2 and Jarchi affirms that he wrote them by the hand or means of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, inspired prophets; though some Jewish writers (e) suppose they were written partly by him, and partly by Nehemiah; that all to 2 Chronicles 21:2 were written by Ezra, and the rest by Nehemiah. Kimchi thinks that Ezra was not the first author and writer of these books, but that the books of Chronicles and Annals of the kings of Judah, and of the kings of Israel, were separately written before him; but that he only revised them, and with the men of the great synagogue added the genealogies, and put them into the canon of the Scriptures (f). Spinosa (g) fancies they were written after Judas Maccabaeus had restored the temple, since the historian tells what families dwelt in Jerusalem in the times of Ezra, 1 Chronicles 9:1 and speaks of the porters, 1 Chronicles 9:17 two of which are mentioned, Nehemiah 11:19 as if Ezra could not describe the families that lived when he did, or name the porters of the temple, since it was finished and dedicated in his time, Ezra 6:15, but however there is no doubt to be made of the authenticity of these books, since not only they have always been acknowledged by the Jews as a part of the canonical Scripture, and by ancient Christians, as appears by the catalogues of Melito (h) and Origen (i); but there are plain references to them in the New Testament. The genealogy of Christ, by the evangelists, is formed out of them; the doxology in Revelation 5:12 as some have observed, comes very near to what is used by David, 1 Chronicles 29:11 and the passages in Acts 7:48 contain the sense of what is expressed in 2 Chronicles 2:5. The use and design of these books are chiefly to give a larger account of the kingdom of Judah, especially after the division of it from the ten tribes, and of the kings thereof, than what is given in the preceding books, as in the last of these books; and particularly they ascertain the genealogy of Christ, that it might be clear and plain of what tribe and family the Messiah came, that he descended from the tribe of Judah, and from the kings of the house of David, as in this first book. They both contain an history from Adam, to the deliverance of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon. The first of these books reaches, according to Hottinger (k), to A. M. 2985, and the latter is an history of four hundred and seventy two years. According to Bishop Usher (l) the former contains a course of 2990 years, and the latter of four hundred and seventy eight.

(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.

INTRODUCTION TO 1 Chronicles 1

This chapter gives us the genealogy of the patriarchs from Adam to Noah, 1 Chronicles 1:1 of the sons of Noah, and their posterity, to Abraham, 1 Chronicles 1:5 of the sons of Abraham and their posterity, 1 Chronicles 1:28 and of the sons of Esau, 1 Chronicles 1:35 and of the kings and dukes that reigned in Edom, 1 Chronicles 1:43.

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).

1Ch 1:1-23.

亚当到挪亚的谱系

1. 亚当,等——须补上「生」字。此处只提及那一位在直系继承次序中的家族成员。

请对照旁注参考与注释。

Adam, Sheth, Enosh - That is, Adam was the father of Sheth or Seth. Seth was the father of Enosh, Enosh the father of Kenan, and so on. No notice is taken of Cain and Abel, or of any of the other sons of Adam. One line of patriarchs, from Adam to Noah, is what the historian intended to give; and to have mentioned the posterity of Cain or Abel would have been useless, as Noah was not the immediate descendant of either. Besides, all their posterity had perished in the deluge, none remaining of the Adamic family but Noah and his children; and from these all the nations of the earth sprang.

How learned must those men be who can take for a text "The first verse of the first chapter of the first book of Chronicles." and find a mystery in each name; which, in the aggregate, amounts to a full view of the original perfection, subsequent fall, consequent misery, and final restoration, of Man! O ye profound illustrators of the names of men and cities! why do ye not give us the key of your wisdom, write comments, and enlighten the world?