palace, wnnn, to recount a genealogy; the mention of ancient and

modern cubits, II Chron. iii. 3., and of D8, Darics, a Persian

gold coin, I Chron. xxix. 7.-It is impossible to determine the age of these books more accurately than this, for want of evidence. Still less can we ascertain who was the author. They who have concluded from the two last verses of the second book, which are the same as the first two of Ezra, that the books of Chronicles are the work of Ezra[b], have not attended to the difference of style and manner of narration. Some have placed the writer of these books in the times of Darius Codomannus or Alexander the Great, appealing to the genealogy, I Chron. iii. 19-24: but this modern date is repugnant to the style and design of the books, so that the genealogy referred to must be considered as appended by a more modern hand. [c]

(a) Thus David is not written 717, but always 717; Jerusalem

.T

not oh, but o'. Aramæan orthography occurs, such as Aleph

at the end of words instead of He, as Ny for y, I Chron. xiii. 7. comp.

II Sam. vi. 6. So also Aleph is prefixed, or commuted with He. See I Chron. ii. 12, xiii. 12. II Chron. ii. 15.]—[For a comparison of the style of the books of Chronicles with that of the books of Samuel and Kings, see DE WETTE, Einleit. § 190 anm. b), or GESENIUS Geschicht der Heb. Sprach. S. 38. ff. Tr.]

[b) This is the opinion of most of the Jewish writers; CARPZOV, Introd. p. 286., Episcopius, Sanctius, Huet, and others, consider Ezra as the compiler from previous documents.-The identity of II Chron. xxxvi. 22. s. and Ezra i. 1. s. has been accounted for on the supposition of a mistake of the transcriber; HORNE, Introd. IV. 55. note 1). To this, however, some minute verbal differences may be objected.-DE WETTE (Einleit. § 192. anm. b), considers the difference of the genealogies I Chron. vi. 3. ss. and Ezra vii. 1. ss. as a proof that Ezra was not the compiler of Chronicles. Comp. also BERTHOLDT. Th. V. S. 987. ff. Tr.]

(c) So EICHHORN, Th. II. S. 583. f. and DAHLER de librorum Paralipomenon auctoritate atque fide historica. Argent. 1819. p. 5. Tr.]

51. Sources of the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles.

The records from which these books* were compiled, are referred to throughout; but it is questioned whether the Chronicles have been derived from the same sources as the books of Samuel and Kings.In the books of Samuel there is indeed no citation of any authority; but that there were in those times public annals, is plain, from I Chron. xxvii. 24. where they are expressly mentioned, and from I Chron. xxix. 29. where their authors are named.[a]- -In the books of Kings the history of king Solomon is first mentioned, and subsequently the annals of the kings of Judah and of the kings of Israel are perpetually cited.[b]—In Chronicles, especially in the second book, there are frequent references to records, from a collation of which it is evident; 1) that the history of most of the kings was written by the prophets[c]; and therefore, agreeably to the prophetic manner, there is a constant reference to the theocracy and to divine rewards and punishments[d]. 2) Many histories of kings written by prophets were inserted in the annals of the kingdom[e]. 3) Citations of the annals of the kings of Judah and Israel, in which the historical writings of the prophets just mentioned were inserted, are very frequent[f]. 4) Yet all the historical writings of the prophets which are cited, were not inserted in those annals; for occasionally the historical writings of the prophets are distinguished from them, e. g. II Chron. xxxii. 22. xxxiii. 18. s.— -From all this it follows, that the author of Chronicles generally uses the same authorities as the author of the books of Kings, but with the addition of some others.- -It is beyond all doubt that the annals of the kings of Judah and Israel cited in Chronicles are not our books of Kings; for the author refers the reader who may be desirous of further information to those ennals, in cases where our books of Kings have not more, but less, than his work: e. g. II Chron. xvii. 1—xx. 34. comp. I Ki. xv. 24. xxii. 1—33, 41— 51; so also II Chron. xxiii. 1-xxiv. 27. comp. I Ki, xi. 1-xiii. 22. Those annals, therefore, which the author of Chronicles refers to, are books contemporaneous with the events which they relate, the

* [The author undoubtedly means the books of Kings and Chronicles, as is plain from the very next sentence where he denies that those of Samuel contain any such references. Tr.]

greater part written by prophets. But as his extracts often agree with those taken from the annals of the kings of Judah and Israel which we find in our books of Kings, there is hardly room for doubt, that the same annals are the sources both of the books of Kings and of those of Chronicles.[g]

·

[a) I Chron. xxvii. 24. Neither was the number put in the account of the chronicles of king David.' I Chron. xxix. 29. Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer.' Thus also in II Chron. ix. 29. Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?' From these texts it is plain that Samuel, and the prophets who succeeded him, wrote the history of their times. Since in the books of Samuel no monument of the history of David is mentioned, it is reasonable to suppose that the contents of those books were drawn from the same history which is referred to in I Chron. xxix. 29; especially since the account in the Chronicles taken from that history often agrees verbally with the book of Samuel, (comp. I Sam. xxxi. 1—13. with I Chron. x. 1—13; II Sam. v. 17–25. with I Chron. xiv. 8-17: II Sam. vii. with I Chron. xvii.; II Sam. viii. with I Chron. xvii. II Sam. x. with I Chron. xix;) and in other places what occurs in Samuel is carefully omitted in Chronicles, so that the latter work is not intelligible without the former. From this it is clear, that the author of Chronicles presupposes the books of Samuel to be known.]

[6) See I Ki. xi. 41. xiv. 19, 29. xv. 7. and other places. After the histories of the last kings of both nations, Hoshea in Israel and Zedekiah in Judah, these references do not occur; probably because in the overthrow of those kingdoms, the annals relating to the government of the last king were either not completed, or lost. The document which in I Ki. xi. 41. is called "the acts of Solomon "" can hardly be different from "the book of Nathan, the prophecy of Ahijah, and the vision of Iddo" which are mentioned in II Chron. ix. 29, as the source of the extracts given in the work, since here also a verbal agreement prevails similar to that between the books of Samuel and Chronicles. That these documents were public records is shown from the very nature of the extracts, which partake of the character of such papers. See I Chron. xii. 23—40; xv. 11–24; xxii. 1–xxix. 25.]

[e) It has already been seen (note a) that the history of David was written by the prophets Samuel, Nathan, and Gad (I Chron. xxix. 29),

and that of Solomon by the prophet Nathan (II Chron. ix. 29.).— -At the end of the history of Rehoboam in II Chron. xii. 15., we read that his whole history (his "acts, first and last,") is written "in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies,” i. e. to continue the genealogies or the histories, 'n; and in II Chron.

xiii. 22. "the rest of the history of Abijah is written a in the

register of the prophet Iddo."]

[d) This is confirmed by the freedom which is used in reproving sin, and proved by express declarations. See II Chron. xx. 34, and other places.] [This fact is largely made use of by Semler, Bauer, De Wette and their followers, in their endeavours to throw discredit upon these books. Every thing disagreeable to them is explained away by referring it to what they call the theocratico-mythological spirit' (theokratischmythologische geist) of the work and its prophetic authors. Tr.]

[e) The history of Jehoshaphat, composed by the prophet Jehu, the son of Hanani, was introduced (y) into the book of the history of the kings; II Chron. xx. 34.-The history of Hezekiah was written by Isaiah in the book of the history of the kings of Judah and Israel; II Chron. xxxii. 32.- -The history of Rehoboam was written by the prophets Shemaiah and Iddo for the purpose of continuing the histories, and also introduced into the well-known book of the kings; II Chron, xii. 15. -The history of Ahijah was written in the Midrash (register) of the prophet Iddo, and that of Joash in the Midrash of the book of Kings, II Chron. xiii. 22. xxiv. 27.] .

[Le Clerc denies the agency of prophets in the writing of the public annals, and ascribes it to certain ( Twv izoprnativ,

Saquinμatoypapo; Eng. Trans. 'recorders') who are occasionally mentioned in the history of the kings: I Sam. viii. 16. 1 Chron. xviii. 15. I Ki. iv. 13. II Ki. xviii. 18. II Chron. xxxiv. 8. But these few instances are not sufficient to establish his own hypothesis, much less to destroy the force of the positive evidence that the histories of several of the kings were entered in the public annals by prophets. Tr.]

[ƒ) Comp. II Chron. xvi. 11. xx. 34. xxiv. 27. xxv. 26. xxvi. 22. xxvii. 7. xxviii. 26. xxxii. 32. xxxiii. 18. xxxv. 26. xxxvi. 8., and the passages of I and II Kings cited in note c) on 45. Tr.]

[* Jahn, in the passage of his German Introduction from which this is taken, uses the word Verzeichniss. The Eng. Trans. has " story." GESENIUS explains the Hebrew by 'exposition,' 'interpretation.' Tr.]

[g) This is confirmed by the occurrence of expressions in both books which, being incongruous with the age of the compilers, must have been copied from the ancient records, and from their exact similarity, appear to have been taken from the same original: comp. II Chron. v. 9. with I Ki, viii. 8. and II Chron. viii. 8. with I. Ki. ix. 21. Tr.]

§ 52. Historical Credit of the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles.

As the greatest part of the history which these books contain is derived from the same documents contemporary with the events, and some of it from others also contemporaneous, and as the authors show their fidelity by referring their readers to the sources whence they have drawn their information; there is no reason to doubt the truth of their narratives.- -1) The readers of our authors, of the same age with them, who had access to those ancient records, and were able to ascertain their fidelity, thought these extracts worthy of such credit; that they abandoned the ancient contemporary records to the ravages of time.-2) The authors adhered closely to the documents whence they made their compilations; for the character of their style and language varies according to the variations in those ancient documents caused by the difference of authors. Hence it is evident that the words of the documents have been retained, as is elsewhere usual with oriental historians.This close adherence appears also from the number of Chaldee and modern words being less than might otherwise be expected from the age in which the compilers lived.3) Many expressions do not suit their age, and evidently have been scrupulously retained from the contemporary records. Comp. I Ki. viii. 22. ix. 21.[a]-4) Many things are related which are disgraceful to the nation and to its principal men, and the speeches which are recorded agree more accurately with the characters and situations of the speakers, than could be expected in a fiction or a revised and altered composition. Comp. I Sam. ix. 5-8, 11-14, 18—27. xii. 1–25. xxv. 25-31. II Sam. vii. 18. s. I Chron. xvii. 16-27. II Sam. xiv. 4-20. xvii. 7—13. xix. 35-38. I Ki. iii. 5--15. viii. 14—53. II Chron. vi. 1—42. II Ki. xix. 5-19.5) The whole course of the history is con