international critical commentary on first and second chronicles
DESCRIPTION
commentary on 1 and 2 ChroniclesTRANSCRIPT
ThistoIt
is
a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves beforethe world's books discoverable online.
it
was
carefully scanned
by Google as part of a project
make
has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain.
to
copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book
is in
the public
A public domain book is one that was never subject domain may vary country to country. Public domain books-
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture
and knowledge
that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia presentpublisher to a library and finally to you.
in the original
volume
will appear in this file
a reminder of this book's long journey from the
Usage guidelinesGoogleis
proud
to partner
with libraries to digitize public domain materials and
make them widely
accessible. Public
domain books belong
to the
public and
we
are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this
work
is
expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource,
we have
taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We
also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the filespersonal, non-commercial purposes.
We
designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and
we
request that you use these
files for
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automatedtranslation, optical character recognition or other areas
queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machineto
where access
a large
amount of text is
helpful, please contact us.
We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and
may
be able
to help.
+ Maintain
attribution
additional materials through
The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.use,
for informing people about this project
and helping them find
+ Keep
it
legal
Whatever your
because
we
believe a
book
is
in the public
remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you domain for users in the United States, that the work is
are doing
is legal.
Do
not assume that justfor users in otherspecific use ofin
also in the public
domain
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.countries.
any manner
About Google Book SearchGoogle's missionis to
organize the world's information and to
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reachat
make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
jhttp //books qooqle com/: ..
JT
*
^^k^3
Vw
^^^m
1
^&
Digitized by
VjC
m
j
!
!
REESE LIBRARYUNIVERSITY @F CALIFORNIA.
-ww~wwvuu-FJC&T.1
I
i
Digitized by
Digitized by
,'./'C
Digitized by
Inttritatbnal Critical Comnuntargon
% Polg
gmpturts
of
tfct
#Ib anb
UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF
The
Rev.
CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS,,
D.D., D.Litt.,
Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary New York /
The
Rev.
SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER,Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford;
D.D., D.Litt.,
The
Rev.
ALFRED PLUMMER,College,
M.A., D.D.,Durham.
Sometime Master of University
Digitized by
Digitized by
The International Critical CommentaryOnthe Holy Scriptures of the Old and
New TestamentsEDITORS* PREFACE
THEREwrittenSchools, the
are
now
by
British
or homiletical
many Commentaries, and American divines, of a popular character. The Cambridge Bible forbefore the public
Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The Speaker's Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schafi), The Expositor's Bible, and other similar series, have their special place and importance. But they do not enter into the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such series of Commentaries as the Kursgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch sum A. T. ; De Wette's Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch turn N. T; Meyer's Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar; Keil and Delitzsch's Biblischer Commentar fiber das A. T.; Lange's Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk; Nowack's Handkommentar turn A. T. ; Holtzmann's Handkommentar sum N. T. Several of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English-speaking public ; others are in process of translation. But no corresponding series by British or American divines has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has come, in the judgment t>f the projectors of this enterprise, when it is practicable to combine British and Americanscholarsin
the
production
Commentary
that will
of a critical, comprehensive be abreast of modern biblical scholarship,van.
and in a measure
lead
its
Digitized by
The International&
Critical Commentary
Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of
New
York, and Messrs.series
T.
T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a
of Commentaries on the Old andof Prof. S. R. the Rev.
New
Testaments, under the
editorship of Prof. C. A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., in America,
Driver, D.D., D.Litt,
for the for the
and Old Testament, and
Alfred Plummer, D.D.,
New
Testament, in
Great Britain.
The Commentaries will be international andandwill
inter-confessional,bias.
will
be
free
from polemical andcritical critical
ecclesiastical
They
be based upon a thorough
study of the original texts
of the Bible, and upon
are designed chiefly for students
methods of interpretation. and clergymen, andwillit,
Theywill
be
written in a compact style.
Each bookstill
be preceded by an
Introduction, stating the results of criticism upon
and
discussdetails
ing impartially the questions
remaining open.
The
of criticism will appear in their proper place in the body of the
Commentary.
Each
section of the Text will
be introduced
with a paraphrase, or summary of contents.
Technical details
of textual and philological criticism will, as a rule, be keptdistinct
from matter of a more general character ; and in the Old Testament the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far aspossible, so as to
be serviceable to students not acquainted withwill
Hebrew.dealt
The History of Interpretation of the Books with, when necessary, in the Introductions, with
be
critical
notices of the most important literature of the subject. Historical and Archaeological questions, as well as questions of Biblical
Theology, are included in the plan of the Commentaries, butnot Practical or Homiletical Exegesis.stitute
The Volumes
will con*
a uniform
series.
Digitized by
.
The International
Critical
Commentary
ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORSTHE OLD TESTAMENTGCNESIS. The Rev. John Skinner, D.D., Principal and Protestor of Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church [Now Ready. of England, Cambridge, England.
EXODUS. TheLEVITICUS.
Rev. A. R. S. University of Edinburgh.J. F.
Kennedy, D.D.,
Professor of Hebrew,
Stenning, M.A., Fellow of
Wadham
College, Oxford.
NUMBERS.
The Rev. G. Mansfield College, Oxford
Buchanan Gray, D.D.,S.
Professor of Hebrew,
[Now Heady.R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro[Now Ready.
DEUTERONOMY.fessor of
The Rev.
Hebrew, Oxford.
JOSHUA. TheJUDGES. The
Rev. George Adam Smith, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, United Free Church College, Glasgow.
Rev. George Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theol[Now Ready. ogy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
SAMUEL. TheKINGS.Seminary,
Rev. H. P. Smith, D.D., Professor of Old Testament [Now Ready. Literature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa.
and Professor
The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., President of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union TheologicalCity.
New York
CHRONICLES.
The Rev. Edward
L.
Hebrew, Yale University,
New
Haven, Conn.
Curtis, D.D., Profeisor of [plow Ready.
of St. Mark's Church, York City, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia.
EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. The New
Rev. L.\V. Battkn, Ph.D., D.D., Rector sometime Professor of Hebrew,
PSALMS.lessor of
Seminary,
The Rev. Chas. A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., Graduafe TroTheological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics, Union Theological New York. [2 vols. Now Read"
PROVERBS. The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready.JOB.
The Rev.
S.
R. Drivir, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of He-
brew, Oxford.
Digitized by
J^
The International Critical CommentaryISAIAH.Chaps.
I-XXXIX.
The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.D.,Rev. A.
Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford.
ISAIAH.
Chaps.
XL-LXVI. The
S.
Peake, M.A., D.D., Dean
of the Theological Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of Biblical Exegesis in the University of Manchester, England.
JEREMIAH. The
Rev. A. F. Kirkpatrick.D.D, Dean of Ely, sometime Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England.
EZEKIEL. The Rev. G. A. COOKE, M.A., Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev. Charles F. Burn ky, D. Litt., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John's College, Oxford.
DANIEL. The Rev. John P. Peters, Ph.D., D.D., sometime Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New York City.
HOSEA. W. R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., sometime Presi[Now Ready. dent of the University of Chicago, Illinois.
AMOS AND
MICAH TO HAGGAI.Prof.
Prof.
John
P. Smith,
University of Chicago;
Charles P. Fagnani, D.D., Union Theological Seminary, New York; W. Hayes Ward, D.D., LL.D., Editor of The Independent, New York; Prof. Julius A. Bewer. Union Theological Seminary, New York,andProf.
H. G. Mitchell, D.D., Boston University.Prof.
ZECHARIAH TO JONAH.P.
H. G. Mitchell, D.D.,
Prof.
John
Smith and
Prof. J.
A. Bewer.
ESTHER. The Rev. L. B. ford Theological Seminary.ECCLESIASTES.cal Literature,
Paton, Ph.D., Professor
of
Hebrew, Hart-
[Now
Ready.
Prof.
George
Bryn
Mawr
College, Pa.
A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Bibli[Now Ready.
RUTH, SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS. Rev. CHARLES A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
THE NEW TESTAMENTST.
MATTHEW.
The Rev. WlLLOUOHBY
C.
Allen, M.A., Fellow andf
Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford,
Now Ready.New Testa-
ST. MARK. Rev. E. P. GOULD, D.D., sometime Professor ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia.
of
[Now Ready.
ST. LUKE. The Rev. Alfred Plummbr, D.D., sometime Master of [AOtv Ready. University College, Durham.
Digitized by
Th International Critical CommentaryT.
JOHN. The
Patrick's
Very Rev. John Henry Bernard, D.D., Dean of and Lecturer in Divinity, University of Dublin.
St.
HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. The Rev. William Sandav, D.D., LL.D. Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, ana the Rev. WlLlouohby C. Allen, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew,,
Exeter College, Oxford.
ACTS. The
Rev. C. H. Turner, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. Bate, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London.
A
ROMANS. The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., LI..D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. C. Headlam, M.A., D.D., Principal of King's College, London.[Now Ready.
CORINTHIANS. The
Right Rev. Arch. Robertson, D.D., LL.D., Lord Bishop of Exeter, the Rev. Alfred Plummkr, D.D.,and Dawson Walker, D.D., Theological Tutor in the University of Durham.
GALATIANS. The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D., Professor of Testament Literature, University of Chicago.
New
Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, B.D., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, now [Now Ready. Librarian of the same.D.Litt.,
EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. The
PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON. The Rev. Marvin R. Vincent, D. D., Professor of Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. [Now Ready.
THESSALONIANS. TheBiblical Theology,
Union Theological Seminary,
Rev. James E. Frame, M.A., Professor of New York.
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.of Keble College
The Rev. Walter Lock, D.D., Warden
and Professor
of Exegesis, Oxford.
HEBREWS.
The Rev. A. Nairne, M.A., Professor
of
Hebrew
in
King's
College, London.
8T. JAMES. The Rev. James H. Ropes, D.D., Bussey Professor of Testament Criticism in Harvard University.
New
PETER AND JUDE. The
Rev. CHARLES BlGG, D.D., sometime Regius
Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
[Now Ready.
THE EPISTLES OFand Divinity Lecturer
ST.in
Rev. E. A. BROOKE, B.D., Fellow King's College, Cambridge.
JOHN. The
REVELATION. The
Rev.
Robert H. Charles, M.A., D.D., sometime
Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin.
Digitized by
Digitized by
THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES
Digitized by
Digitized by
The
International Critical Commentary
CRITICAL
AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARYON
THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLESBY
EDWARD LEWIS
CURTIS,
Ph.D., D.D.
PROFESSOR OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE IN THE DIVINITY SCHOOL OF YALE UNIVERSITY
AND
ALBERT ALONZO MADSEN,NEWBURGH,N.
Ph.D.
PASTOR OF THE FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH AT
Y
NEW YORKCHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS1910
Digitized by
$$* 4"). An antiquated term is often replaced by a later one (cf. 1 Ch. 10"
possibly
due
to transcriber, v. in loco) 144 (tv)
15"
-
13*
15"
? ig> ai-
)
Statements jarring the Chronicler's sense of religious propriety or doingviolence to his conception of the course of history were omitted or
modified (see
4, pp.
9-15).
Other departures from the text are such as might be expected from one who was not a servile copyist. The Chronicler abridges frequently 4 *> -" a- 2 Ch. !- 3-7- >" 7'- 36'-''), and occasion(cf. 1 Ch. i"ally introduces words to emphasise an idea or to give clearness, and also pious phrases (cf. 1 Ch. n 15" i8- ' a Ch. 18").
Digitized by
20
I
AND
2
CHRONICLES
This direct use, however, was formerly questioned, because thevariance between the parallels seemed destructive to the infallible
Hence arose the theory (held by its final and most perfect form especially by Keil) that the Chronicler and the writers of the canonical books both used common sources, and that the parallelsinspiration of the Chronicler.
many commentators, and
represented in
were independent extracts from
common
sources, each
made from
a point of view peculiar to
itself (Keil, Intro. 141).
To1
illustrate thisis
view:
In the account of Saul's death (2 S. 3: andwriter of1 S.
Ch. 10) there
agreement almost word for word until the treatment of
the corpse of the King.
The
says:
The
Philistines cut off
armour and put his armour in the house of Astaroth, and then fastened his body to the wall of Bethshean. The Chronicler says: They took his head and his armour and they put his armour in the house of their gods and fastened his head in the temple of Dagon. The original source of both of these accounts Keil held must have contained an account of both head and trunk, which the author of 1 S. followed as far as the trunk was concerned and the Chronicler as far as the head. Again in comparing 3 Ch. a with 1 K. 5"-" two; in 3-5' 1 1 K. 6, 7"-"it is
different,
II
||
three; in1
5*-7" I1K.8 three; in 9'-" 1 K. io' two; in io"-ii | K. 11'" four; and thus in a similar manner throughout the entire list||
of parallels.
(The analyses
of Ki., Kau., Sk., give
a
similar result.)
The
Chronicler then used our present canonical books and not
their sources for all matter
common to both works.is
He might still,
however, have used their sources for material not found in thecanonical books, but of this therein
not the slightest evidence and
form
all
new
material (excluding genealogical matter1
list
of David's additional heroes,
Ch.
n
>-)
is
of the
and the compo-
sition or style of the Chronicler.
B.
of the author of
Sources alleged by the Chronicler. After the manner 1 and 2 K., the Chronicler refers to written sources.
These are of two classes; first, those with general titles: (a) A Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, for the reigns of Jotham, Josiah,
and Jehoiakim (2 Ch. 27' 35" 36')- (b) A Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, for the reigns of Asa, Amaziah, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (v. i. (o)) (2 Ch. 16" 25" 28" 32"). (c) A Book of the Kingsof Israel, for genealogies (1 Ch. 9')(2
and the reigns of Jehoshaphat(d)
Ch. 20")
(v. i.
(m)) and Manasseh (2 Ch. 33").
A
Mid-
rash of the
Book
of the Kings, for the reign of Joash (2 Ch. 24").titles: (e)
Secondly, those with specific prophetic
words orof
acts, so also
below) of Samuel the(g)
seer,
The history (lit. (f) The historyThese(h)
Nathan
the prophet,
The
history of
Gad
the seer.
three are given for the reign of
David(i)
prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite.
The (1 Ch. 29"). The visions of Iddo the seer.
These two and9")of(2
also
0) The
history of
(Q are given for the reign of Solomon (2 Ch. Shemaiah the prophet, (k) The historyfor the reign of
Iddo the
seer.(1)
These two are given
RehoboamJehu which
Ch. 12").
The Midrash(m)
of the prophet
Iddo
for the reign
of
Abijah (2 Ch. 13").
A
history of the prophet
Digitized by
22is
I
AND
2
CHRONICLESKings ofIsrael, for the reign of Je~
inserted in the
Book
of the
hoshaphatin the
(v. s. (c)).
(n)
A writing of Isaiah the prophet, for the(o)
reign of Uzziah (2 Ch. 26").
The vision
of Isaiah the prophet
Book
of the
Kings of Judah and(p) ?
Israel, for the reign of
Hezekiah
(v. s. (b)).
A
history of the seers for particulars
concerning Manasseh (2 Ch. 33")Authorities thus are given for the history ofall
the kings of
Judah except Jehoram, Ahaziah, Amon, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. (Naturally none are given for Athaliah and Jehoahaz.) Also the following works are referred to (q) A genealogical register compiled in the day of Jotham and Jeroboam II (1 Ch. 5"). (r) The later history of Davjd? (1 Ch. 23"). (s) The chronicles (lit. words) of David in which the census taken by Joab was not:
entered (1 Ch. 27").
(t)
A collection of lamentations (2 Ch. 35").
The
first
three of these
to represent
a
single
Kings ofof
Israel
works (a) (b) (c) are generally allowed work whose full title was, The Book of the and Judah, or Judah and Israel, and the tideabbreviated
which
in
(c) is
Israel representing the entire
people and not specifically the N. kingdom, since under (c)
Manasseh are treated. This work, an authority for reigns as early as that of Asa and as late as that of Jehoiakim, was clearly a comprehensive one, but not the canonical Books of Kings, because it is cited for matters not in those books i.e., genealogies (1 Ch. 9'), the wars ofthe reigns of Jehoshaphat andis
which
cited as
Jotham
(2
Ch. 27') and the prayer of Manasseh
the abominations of Jehoiakim (2 Ch. 36O.
(2 Ch. 33") and Neither was it the
sources mentioned in
1
and
2
K.
for the political history of IsraelIt
and Judah,
since they
were twoI. col.
distinct works.
may, however,p. xl.; Graf,
have been a work dependent upon those sources (Be.
GB.
p. 192;
Dr. EBi.
768,
LOT."
p. 532), or since the real
book apart from that in the it may have been dependent upon those books, a Midrash or commentary on them (Kuenen, Einl. p. 160). In their earliest form 1 and 2 K. may have containedhistorical material derivedis
from
this
canonical books
extremely meagre
fuller
information than in their present Massoretic form.
A war,
rant for this inference lies in the occasional fuller text ofimplies an earlier, fuller
which
Heb. text (Bu. Gesch. AUheb.
Lit. p. 229).
Digitized by
SOURCESWinckler gives the fallowing genesis of Ch.:Pre-ezilic chronicles of IsraelExilic, lost
23
and Judah.Legends of Prophets. Midrash.
book
of Kings.
Midrash.
Chronicles.
Mufri, Melultka, Main, MVAG. 1898, p. 42. In reality no one can decide the exact basis of any unknown work. Many and extensive volumes may lie before an author whose work isrestricted
and meagre.(e)
is uncertain.
was the same as this Book of Kings title would suggest a distinct work (so Be., Zoe., Oe., Ki.); on the other hand it is not apparent why if, as its title shows, it was a comprehensive work dealing with the kings generally, it should not be the same work as the one just mentioned (so Ew. Hist. i. p. 187; We. Prol. p. 227; Francis Brown, DB. I. P..395; Dr. (the probability) EBi. I. col. 768).Whether the Midrash
The
peculiar
The word Midrash (rra 3 Ch. 13" 34" f *ro Rabbinic literature denotes an exposition, an exegesis.
m *m
to seek) in
This frequently took the form of stories (such as those of Judith, Tobit, etc.), and the probability is that the Midrash of Kings was a reconstructed history of Israel embellished with marvellous tales of divine interposition and prophetic activity, such as have been reproduced in Ch.
The prophetic writings (e) to (p) are not in all probability distinctworks, but are illustrations of the usual Jewish manner of citingsections of comprehensive works.
As
in the
NT. we
read,
"Have
ye not read in the Book of Moses in the place concerning the
Bush" (Mk.
i2 M ), or
more
aptly,
"Know ye not what the scriptureof Nathan,
saith in Elijah" (Rom. n).
The "histories"of Kings,i.e.,
Gad, and
the others are then the sections of which Nathan, Gad, etc., were
the catchwords in the
Book
the Midrash with theis
possible exception of (n) where the reference
probably to the
BookThis
of Isaiah (cc. 36-39),
and
also (e),
(f), (g), (h),
and
(i),
not
unlikely refer to sections of our canonical books (v. commentary).is
proved
first
because the history of the prophet Jehu (m)
Digitized by
24
I
AND
2
CHRONICLES
and the vision of'Isaiah (o) are expressly mentioned as in this Book of Kings, and secondly because the Chronicler never cites the authority of the Book of Kings and the history of a prophet for any one reign except where they are coupled together. The mainsources used by the Chronicler are then, inthe canonical booksall likelihood,
only two,
and this Midrashic History of Israel, and if this latter was dependent upon the canonical books then in reality he had no really historical material apart from those books in their original form (v. $.). Whether the Midrashic history containedall
his extra-canonical genealogical material, or whether he gathit is
ered some from elsewhere through written or oral sources,possible to determine.It is also possible that the Chronicler
im-
has cited sources simply to
produce the impression that he is writing with authority, and that their titles are mere literary adornments suggested by those in the Book of
This is essentially the view of Torrey, who, speaking of the comprehensive work so generally held to have been used by the Chronicler, says, "It is time that scholars were done with this phantomKings.'
source,' of
which the internal evidenceis
is
absolutely lacking,
and
the
external evidence
limited to the Chronicler's transparent paradingit
of 'authorities';
while the evidence against
is
overwhelming"
(AJSL.
xxv. p. 195).
The
uniformity of the Chronicler's non-canon-
ical material certainly
supports this view, yet at the
also plausible that the Cnronicler
may have had
before
same time it is him one or
more sources from which he derived subject-matter which he freely composed in his own way. Certainly some of the new historical reminiscences preserved in Chronicles were, in all probability, derived from
written sources.
Eliminating the canonical quotations, the remainder of Chronicles is so
marked and homogeneous(Thus We.
in style that
it
has beenArt.
usually (and properly) treated as thei.e.,
work
of a single author,
the Chronicler.
Prol. p. 227; Dr.
EBi.
I.
Chronicles;
and
especially Torrey,
AJSL.
xxv. Nos. 2, 3, 1909.)
In recent years, however, this remainder has beeninto sources.is
analysedit
This presentation has such scholarly support thatconclusions.
worthy of statement, and throughout our commentary weits
give,
with criticism,In an
article
published in 1899 (in1
ZAW.)a
Buchler, a
German
scholar,
argued that our present
and
2 Ch. are
revised edition of
a work that
Digitized by
SOURCESoriginally
25
made no distinction between the priests and the Levites. This distinction he held was introduced later by the Chronicler, who magnified the position of the Levites and brought in the Levitieal musicians.
Under
the influence apparently of Buchler's investigations,
Beiudnger, in his commentary (appearing in 1901), presented also the
view that the Chronicler was
much more an1
editor
than in any way an independent writer.through a study of the parallels with
ThisS.
and 2
and mere compiler was reached and 1 and 2 K. Someresult
of these parallels agree essentially verbally with their source, others
are held to
show a considerable departure from the canonical text. These latter come not from the hand of the Chronicler but from a forerunner whose work he copied; and as the Chronicler was only in the main a mere copyist in his treatment of the canonical writings, so likewise, it was inferred, must he have been in his treatment of his other source or sources. Hence his work contains almost no original composition beyond inserted notices respecting Levites and musicians. (Movers had presented in 1833 essentially this view, Untersuchungen, pp. 163 jf.)
Thus
in
1
mainder, cc.
Ch. 10-29 nlv cc 23-27 are from the Chronicler. Of the re10, 11, 13, 14, 17-19 are from S. Chapter 12 reveals no-
and c. 15 records six Levitieal and modest numbers, hence, except a paragraph concerning Levitieal singers (w. >-"), both of these chapters are not from the Chronicler; c. 12 coming from uncertain sources and c. 15 from the work of a forerunner. Chapter 21 contains, with thespecial interest in anything Levitieal;
families instead of the usual three
absence of a sufficient theological motive, too great departures from2 S. to have been written
by the Chronicler; hencecc.
it is
from anotheris
work, which appears continued in
22, 28, 29.
This work
ad-
mitted to be of the same vein and spirit of the Chronicler, showing aninterest in the religious cultus alleged to
have been developed by David,(1) in its
more modest compared with 22 u - u, a paragraph owing to the great numbers assigned to the Chronicler); (2) in the Deuteronomic colouring and in the lack of interest in P, since no objection is raised to David's sacrifice at the threshing-floorbutis
held to differ from the Chronicler's work:
presentation of contributions for the Temple, no*-* (to be
of
Oman.In 2 Ch. 1-9, which presents a history of Solomon's reign, following,
with the single exception of a paragraph on Solomon's chariots andhorses,(2
the order of1
1
K., the departures from the canonical text
Ch. x"-2" (2
-")) are
supposed to be too great to have come from
is Huram-Abi, instead of Hiram Ch. 2"o> (see commentary), 1 K. 7"), with his mother a Danite instead of a widow from Naphtali (2 Ch. 2"), cf.
Aram.1
kju-w
Dn.6.
riirm lands, designating districts of Israel's territory 3 Ch.1
Ch.
13'
7.8.
\ including Israel's territory Ezr. 3* (text dub.) o " Ne. io"; in any sense pi. is almost wholly late 1 Ch. 14" 33 39" 3 Ch. 9" i3 13* 15' 17" so" 33"- 34 Ezr. 9' Ne. 9" to, v. No. 91. n$f* wrong-doing, guiltiness, 1 Ch. ai a Ch. 34-
-
-
?
S?s Niph. separate oneself
(reflex,
of Hiph.),t;
1
toii. u Ne. 9 9.
io,
also
Nu. 16" (P)
oe separated
Ch. is* Ezr. 6 91 * 1 Ch.
33" Ezr. io tjm, ra byssus, 1 Ch. 4" 15" 3 Ch. 3" 3"
s,
also Est. 1* 8 U
and Ez.
IO.ll.
27" (where Cor. strikes out with
Q*li
3" 8 t (NH.
id.).
22.
O'J'D? yi
* drachma, Ezr. 2" - Ne.
7" Ne.
7"- n t; O'Jsvm?,*
23.
Ch. 29', Ezr. 8" tmn> Ki jgefe Yahweh in prayer and worship, 1 Ch. 16" (=Ps. 105 4 ) a8 2 Ch. 12" 14" 15" 16" 22* 26; n * abs47.
Ch. 23* 2 Ch.
8"
23" 29" 3i Ne. 12*28.
f "
fon
great number,
1
Ch. 29" 2 Ch. "- Ne. 2 Ch. i2 3i- ' > ' Ezr. 26 (Aram.)
=
7' t-
*w50.
genealogy, Ne. 7* f1
rmfjw generations,
Ch.
i s 7-
4-
8"
9-
* 26",
also
Ru. 4"
51 .5a.
and freq. in P. tp; * Hiph. use the right hand, 1 Ch. 12' tiff, * aged, decrepit, 2 Ch. 36" f (cf thf^,
id.,
Jb. 12" 15" 29'
Vt)53.54.6*35
* footstool, 2 Ch. 9" t
(, jto'r;
Aram., a rude12' 17*
seat).
j'jn
< up, prepare,Ch., and Ezr.
1
Ch. 9" 12"esp. with
14' 15' 28' 2
Ch.
3';
aj> set
the heart, 1 Ch.
+ 33 1. 29" 2 Ch.
I2 i9 20" 30" Ezr. 7".
Digitized by
PECULIARITIES OF DICTION55.56.DJ3 gather,
312
Qal
1
Ch. 22* Ne. 12" Ps. 33' Est. 4" Ec.1
3 f.i2'
wj
Niph. be humbled, humble oneself,
Ch. 20* 2 Ch. 7"t,
u
1311
30" 32"
33'-
'
34"1
" 36"Ch.
also Lv. 26*' (H) x S.
7"57. 58. 59."He?
etc.;
Hiph. humble, subdue,
17'* 18' (= 2 S. 8') 2
Ch.
28", also Ju.
4" Dt.28''1
o> Is. 2$
* bowl,
1
Ch.
"
"
Jb. 40" Ps. 8i' 107" t " Ezr. i' ' 8" f-
Ch. 15" t {cf. B. Aram. kSs"?? Dn. 3). V'p^s * crimson, carmine, 2 Ch. 2- ' 3", possibly also Ct. 7* for^fff)3, f (a Persian loan-word). 3ns writing, 1 Ch. 28" 2 Ch. 2" 3s* Ezr. a"
Sfisp * bemantled,
60.
Ne. 7" Ezr.
4',
also Ez. 13"
Dn. 10"Ch. 28"
Est. i 3"-
"
4" 81
5- t-
{Cf.1
same
in B.
rj} sheath,
Ch. 21", also
Aram. Ezr. 7"' ' > Dn. 7" (Aram.) t (NH.
f.)
id.;
a Persian
loan-word).
rDigitized by
3272.
I
AND
2
CHRONICLESEzr.
fn 1*1 hath extended loving-kindness,ffj: riches, 2
7" 9*.
73.7475. 76.77.
Ch. i" u, also Jos. 22* (P), Ec 5" 6* t (p" #-, 1
Ch. 29";
nrra> 07;set the
iri give their pledge to
send away, Ezr. 10"; S 3^ nj
heart to
Ec79.77.
i"-
" 7
8-
do a f.1II.
thing,
1
Ch. 22" 2 Ch. 11", also Dn. 10" '
OV?i * Nethinim,M(Aiaa.) glT.
Ch. o Ezr. 2"
=n
Ne. 7"t-
n
Ezr.
1
Ne. 3Ch. 6"h..
IO* II*f.'
80.81.
190 * enumeration, census, 2 Ch. 2 M
"705
service of1. 1
God,
*
9"
23-
**
24*
'
20 i j8u. u. t. 1.. 11. 311. u. a 35251.
11.
it.
u. n. a 29' 2
Ch. 8" ia
24'*
29"
82. 83 84.
S'p "vsjri? proclaim, 2
ii e IO j ( also ft. Ch. 30* 36 Ezr.
N
m Ez. and P.i',
=
Ezr. io* Ne. 8,
also Ex. 36* (P) f.
"T? *
Mp,
1
Ch. i2-
f (text dub.,1
cf.
textual notes;
if
correct
Aram, loan-word).it);
help of divine assistance,
Ch. 12" 15* 2 Ch. 14"
'
i8 a 23*1
26' 32*, also freq. in Ps., less freq. in earlier books; Niph.
Ch.
5"85.86. 87. 88.89.
2
Ch. 26".
T
1
'? next to (in
a
series), 2
Ch. 17"
'
'
31" Ne.Ch. 25*2
3*
+
13
t.
Ne.
3,
13", esp. late.i-
t.-Vj, '?
*7
"rop
stand on standing-place, 2 Ch. 30" 34"f;
Dn. 8" 10"
with mp* for npy Ne. o
t;
35" Ne. 13", no verb Ne. 8' f.
Digitized by
PECULIARITIES OF DICTION91. 92. 93.
3333'*-
ifvym^tEar. 3
* peoples of the lands, 2 Ch. 13*" Ne. oio, v.1
> (?) 15* i6'- ' ai a6'" a8" 39*>>
30'- '".
Cf.
Ew. Syn.
303 b.1
118.
The
inf. cstr. is
often used almost as a subst.,(cf.
Ch.
7*-
' "Cf.
9 33" 3 Ch. 3 34" Ew. Lehrb. j 336 a.119.
Ezr. 3")
33" Ezr. 1" Ne.
i3.
The1
art. n for the relative (derived from its demonstrative use), Ch. so" 39 s Ch. i (t'?r>a) so" Ezr. 8" io- ". Thisis
use(cf.
very doubtful in early writings, vis. in Jos. 10"Cf.
1 S.
9*
Dr. Notes on Sam.).p. 309,
Ew. Syn. 331
b,
also foot-note
on130.
Koe.1
iii.
f 52, Ges. J 138J.
The
relative omitted (in prose almost entirely confined to
Ch.-
Ezr.-Ne.),(->
31111.
Ezr.
Ne. 8" 13".is
Cf.
Ew. Syn.
333 6, Ges.
55-
131.
ne in two strange idiomswhat,1
almost equivalent to the relativef.
Ch. 15" (n^tfK-5|i) a Ch. 30" (np^)
See textual25'it*>
notes on these passages.
133.
The
relative
f combined
with the prep,
a, 1
Ch.
(. t 151 ao- 22' 24'*- b a6'- ,,k 29"- w 31'- 33" 34" Ezr. 9>- io, also Est. 91 Dn. 8- ' io" "*> '"> n- i2">. Cf. Dr. Notts on Sam., on 1 S. 17". The inf. (with S prefixed) at the end of a sentence, 1 Ch. 15" it. n aa (S'liqS) 25* a Ch. 5" 22" 25" (2 K. 14" otherwise)sake of greater prominence,-
w
placed at the beginning for
36"
" Ezr. 3.
Also prepositions in usages either
new or much more
fre-
quent than in earlier books.127.S ip a strengthened
form of 17
(in earlier writings either alone
128.
4" 12"- 23" 38' 2 Ch. M I7 u ao t. 11 28' 39" 31" 36" Ezr. 3" o 10" t; before an inf. 1 Ch. s 13* 28 2 Ch. 24" ao ' 39* 31' 32" (2 K. 20" \ alone) Ezr. 10", also Jos. 13* Ju. 3* 1 K. i8 f. S as the sign of the ace. (from Aram, influence) a with certainwouldserve);
before a subst. 1 Ch.
,411 ,6it.
:
verbs (contrary to earlier usage), th^l frequently, Vjn only in1 Ch. 26" 29", )>} 1 Ch. 29" Ne. n, Tjn 2 Ch. Ch. 16" i8 25' 29- 2 Ch. 5" 6" 17' 24' 34" Ezr. 8"; b at the end of an enumeration, 1 Ch. a8" 2 Ch. 3411k 26" k a8 n C marking the definite object after an indefinite
Ch.-Ezr., pin
32", also
1
;
1
Ch.
39'* a1
Syriac)
the suffix
Ch. a ' 23'; d after the suffix of a verb (as in Ch. 5" 33* 2 Ch. as ' a8, cf. Ne. o; e defining of a noun 1 Ch. 7 a Ch. 3i>- ' Ezr. 9" 10". Cf.1
Ges. 117*.
129.
S with the
inf.,
expressing leniency, intention, obligation (less
freq. in earlier writings), 1
19* a6
Ch. 6" 9" 10" 22* 2 Ch. 3' 8' n" 31" 36" Ne. 8 uk ; esp. after pH or kS it is not possibleto,
(permitted)20 32
there is
no need
to, 'S > * a Ch. ii i6 Ne.Is.
s' f.1
Sj3 at concerning, 3 Ch. 3a", also Ps.
19" (used differently in
136.
9
59" 63') f. of accompaniment (without a verb), 35" a Ch. 5> 7 13" 35" Ezr. 3'".
1
Ch. 15"-
"
io*
8.
HEBREW TEXT AND THEText.
VERSIONS.
The Hebrewdition,
TheThe
text of Chronicles is in fair con-
though by no means up to the standard of many of the olderlate date of composition, together
Old Testament books.
with the fact that these books probably were less read, hence lesscopied, than most of the Jewish Scriptures,
a betterlarge
text.
The many
lists
of proper names,
would lead us to expect where the context
could not assist the scribe to the true reading, are responsible for a
number
of the textual errors, but the narrative portions also
are not free from serious corruptions showing that the text must
have been handledthe
freely for
a considerable time.(cf.
The
late recep-
tion of Chronicles into the
OT. Canon
Wildeboer, Origin of
Canon of the OT. p. 152) allows for a considerable period of such freedom. The Hebrew mss. contain few variants and theseinvolve largely only the Massoretic accentuation,for restoring the true text.
and give
little
aid
Baer, in his edition of the text (Liber
Chronicorum), notes nineteen variations between the oriental(Babylonian) and occidental (Palestinian)texts,
only fourteen of
which concern the consonantal reading.the confusion of1
Of
these six are due to
and \
three to unimportant omissions of letters,insignificant.
and the remainder are equally
In seven instances
the Qr. of the oriental text calls for the occidental reading.
Digitized by
HEBREW TEXT AND THE VERSIONS
37
In the case of those portions of Chronicles which are parallel tothe older canonical
books the textual
critic is particularly fortunate.
The
text of the sources with their versions majr
be used
in addition
to the versions of Chronicles as
an aid for restoring the original text
of Chronicles, as vice versa Chronicles is often useful for the criti-
cism of the text of the older books, frequently preserving the original
reading
(v. p.
19).
These older books, however, must beare due to the intention of the
used with extreme caution for the purpose of emending the text ofChronicles, sinceChronicler.state
many changes
The
text of the older
books was alreadysources.
in
a corrupt
when
the Chronicler used
them as
Frequently he
made changes inwith adifficult
the interest of better sense, doing the best he could
or corrupt reading,
and
often he simply incorpo-
rated from his source an early corruption.critic
The
task of the textual
of Chronicles
is
not to restore the original source reading oftext as pearly as possible as
a given passage, but only to rewrite theit
came from the hand of the Chronicler.has often caused confusion.
The
failure to observe
this principle
The Greek Versions.Theof these
Greek version of the books ofbelonging in this
Chronicles (commonly supposed to be the Septuagint rendering
books)
is
an extremely
literal translation,
regard in the same category with the Greek of Ezekiel, Canticles,
and
Ecclesiastes.
The
Massoretic text
is
followed so closely that
had our Hebrew recension before him. We are not so well supplied with old Greek mss. as in the case of many Old Testament books, but we possess a complete text of Chronicles in the uncials A (V century), B (IV century), and N (VIII-IX centuries), and for 1 Ch. 9" to irpai to 19" K(IVthere can be
no doubt
that its translator
century)
is
also available.
Numerous cursives (about thirty) datingindependent value has not yet
between the tenth and fifteenth centuries should be added to thislist,
but
how many of these have any
been determined.In addition to this ordinary Greek version, thefirst
book
of
Esdras, which begins with the translation of the last two chaptersof 2 Ch.,is
an important witness for obtaining the original
text of
these chapters.text
This translation
is
much
freer
than the receivedit.
and has a
different
Hebrew
recension behind
The book
is
Digitized by
38
I
AND
2
CHRONICLES
preserved in the uncials A, B,cf.
and N (except most of last chapter, Holmes and Parsons), but not in N; also in nearly thirtycritical
cursives.
Before any
use can be
madeCh.
of these
two versions
they are distinct versions
their respectivetext of
for
ages must be deterthe translation of
mined.
That our received
is really
Theodotion has been maintained by such scholars as Grotius (1644), Whiston (1722), Pohlmann (1859), and Sir Henry Howorth(1893, 1901-2), but the evidence has been set forth most convincingly
by C. C. Torrey
(see
AJSL.
vol.
XXIII. pp. 121 /., and1
especially
ATC.
pp. toff.).
He
maintains that
Esd. represents
the only extant remains of the real Septuagint of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne.,
and
this
origin
was later supplanted by the version of Theodotion, whose was soon forgotten and which was therefore accepted as the
true Septuagint.
The argument has generally been that since our Greek version bears the marks of late origin compared with the1
version preserved in
Esd.,
and
since Theodotion's translationit is
of Daniel supplanted the older translation,
plausible to sup-
pose that the same thing has occurred here and our received textis really
the rendering of Theodotion.
Torrey, in addition to
this,is
has collected much direct evidence that the received textpp. 60difficult
Theodotion's, and this he states along the following lines (A TC.ff.).
(1)
Theodotion's habit of transliterating words of
or uncertain meaning, and often without any apparentis
reason,
one of his most striking characteristics
(cf.
Field,
Hexathis is
pla, I. pp. xxxix-xlii, also Swete, Introduction, p. 46)
and
also the
common
practice oflisted
the translator of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne.
Seventy such words arewith
tributed throughout these books.transliterations
and they appear regularly disSome of them are identicalelsewhere.(2)
by
Theodotion
Unusual
translations in the Theodotion rendering of Daniel are duplicatedin the Chronicler's books.
(3)
According to the custom of this
translator, gentilic
names
are transliterated exactly instead of
being given the Greek adjective ending, though these have often
been substituted
later in the mss., especially in
L.
In view of
our meagre supply of extant passages from Theodotion's translation (Daniel being merely a revision of the old Greek),
from which
Digitized by
HEBREW TEXT AND THE VERSIONShis characteristics
39
must be determined,is
this evidence is surprisingly
strong.
Moreover, evidence
not entirely lacking that the Greek ver-
sion of Ch.-Ezr.-Ne. current before the time of
Theodotion and
apparently accepted as the Septuagint was not our "canonical"version,
but a somewhat
free translation of
a different HebrewIf
recension
and
of
which
1
Esd. formed a part.
our Greek wasnot surprising
the accepted Septuagint in the time of Josephus,
it is
that he should have culled the story of the three youths1
fromelse-
Esd. (Ant.
xi. 3,
2-8-1 Esd.
3-4), since this story
is
wanting
where, but
it is
strange, as has frequently been noticed, that he1
should have quoted in other places fromthe authoritative Septuagint version.
Esd. in preferencexi.
to
In Ant.airrov
1,1. Kvpvtiv
fiatrikevs Xeyet'I&irei fie
6
&09
6 (idyurTO? riji oucovfUvrfioucoBofujaco
iWSetfe1
f3a ypdovTi
ypafiftareloucovcrip iv
ical
ra irpootrhrrovra tow \onrolsical
Bee\&fi'
ie I6 ,b --
"
iy--
tb-llt
20" b
-
" **'
21"'
"* 24,,b
25 ,b
""'
*
" 26" b '"
Digitized by
42
I
AND
2
CHRONICLES
29 32 M - 33". These excerpts, however, must be compared with more recent editions of the Latin fathers before they can betrusted.
In the case of
i
Esd.
preserved in three mss. (Paris us. Bibl. Nat.us. E. R. 8, and a Lucca us.,versioniscf.
we are better off, the Old Latin being lat. in, the MadridSwete, Introduction, p. 95) .
This
of
some value
for recovering the Syro-Palestinian tra-
dition of the Septuagint.
The Latin version of Jerome, commonly called the Vulgate, was a new translation made from the standard Hebrew text of the endof the fourth century a.d.,late origin detracts
and independent
of the Septuagint.
Its
from
its critical
value for textual purposes.it
Bytext
comparingat
it
with the Theodotion Greektheir
frequently aids in theinto the
removal of corruptions which made
way
Hebrewlies in
a comparatively
late date.
Its chief value,it
however,
the
realm of interpretation, wherethe consonantal
supplies
an early rendering of
Hebrew
text for the
which
is
often superior to the
most part as it now stands, modern influenced by Massoreticfirst
tradition.
Theicles is
Syriac Versions.
The
Syriac translation of Chron-
now a part of theit
Peshito, but originally Chronicles
was notThis
received into the Syriac Canon.
Indeed, when the book was sub-
sequently translated
did not meet with general acceptance.
Jews of Edessa. While in most Old Testament books the Peshito follows the Hebrew text faithfully and even literally, with here and there extensiveof
Syriac version seems to have been the
work
influence from the Septuagint, Chronicles stands alone as the translation of
a mere Jewish Targum and exhibitsorigin.
all
the faults which
might be expected from suchcharacteristicsis
One
of
its
most striking
found
in the fact that the text
has very frequently
been conformed to the text of Samuel and Rings. This is even true of extended passages, as where 1 K. i2- followed by 1 K.14'-*
are substituted for 2 Ch. in-12".
The
substitute has the
and must be accepted as the original Syriac text, i.e., the original translators had the text of S.-K. before them. Numerous other instances might be cited where the textauthority of the best uss.
agrees with S.-K. against Ch. in whichSyriac text, but whereits
we may
possess the original
testimony
is
absolutely worthless for the
Digitized by
HEBREW TEXT AND THE VERSIONScriticism of the
43that
Hebrew
text.
Since there can be
no doubt
either the translators, or perhaps
some
later copyist, frequently
conformed Chronicles tocited
its
sources, the Peshito (#)
may never be
in support of readings of S.-K. as original in Chronicles. This fact, together with the character of its origin, makes thePeshito text of Chronicles practically worthless for critical purposes.
Thetions,
Peshito text of Chroniclesall
For discussion, see Frankel, JPT. 1879, pp. 508 ff. is available in a number ofgo back to the Paris Polyglot of 1645.
edi-
but
The London
Polyglot (Walton's), published shortly after, reproduces the Paristext
without change.
The
first
edition
was printed from a veryNationale.
poor ms., "Syr.
6"
of the Bibliotheque
Recently
W.
E. Barnes has published the variant readings of the mss. avail-
able to-day,
and
of the printed editions
{An Apparatus
Criticus to
Chronicles in the Peshitta Version, 1897).
Walton's edition cor-
rected by this apparatus furnishes a good Peshito text.
The
Syriac version of Paul of Telia
was made
in
616-7 A,D ->
from a Greek ms. ultimately derived from the Septuagint column of Origen's Hexapla. This was first made known to Europeby Andreas Masius,
who
died in 1573, and he had a ms. which,
with other books, contained Chronicles, but this has disappeared.
Theing
British
Museum
possesses a catena (Add.
12,168) contain-
fragments of Chronicles and the Books of Esdras.Foil.
fragments of Chronicles are found on
57a-6oa
The (Wm.
Wright, Cat. of Syr. MSS. in Brit. Mus. Part II. p. 905), just published by Gwynn {Remnants of the Later Syriac Versionsof the Bible, 1909, PartII.
pp. 5-17).
The1.
portions of
1
Esd.
and Ne. were published by Torrey {AJSL. Oct. 1906, pp. 69-74),but the ms. contains nothing oftext of 1 Esd., however, is1
Esd.
The Syro-Hexaplarapocryphi syriace),
found elsewhere and has been pubveteris testamenti
lished
by Lagarde {Libri
hence
we have
its
testimony for the recovery of the original
Septuagint text of 2 Ch. 35, 36 (1 Esd. 1). The Arabic Version. The Arabic version of Chronicles
is
available in printed form in the Paris
butinal
is
of
little
or no critical value.
and London Polyglots {v. s.), It is far removed from the origtext {cf. Burkitt,
Hebrew, and as a translation of the Peshito
Digitized by
44
I
AND
2
CHRONICLES
DB.
I.
p. 137)(v. s.).
simply duplicates the testimony of that uncertain
version
Thefirst
Ethiopic Version.of Esdras.
Theis
Books of Chronicles are not
extant in the Ethiopic version, which, however, does contain the
Book
This
of value for regaining the Egyptian(v. s.).
recension of that portion of the Septuagint
The Targum. The Aramaic paraphrase of Chronicles, like thethe other books of the Hagiographa, never had official and was a commentary rather than a translation. It was made from our Massoretic text and possesses little critical value. The text was first published by Matthias Friedrich Beck from an Erfurt ms. in 1680 and 1683. Later (1 715) David Wilkins published the Aramaic text from a ms. in the Cambridge Library with a parallel Latin translation (Paraphrasis Chaldaica in Librum priorem et posteriorem Chronicorum). It was also published by Lagarde in his Hagiographa Chaldaice, Leipzig, 1873. For a full discussion see Kohler and Rosenberg, Das Targum der Chronik,significancein Jild. Zeitschrifl, 1870, pp. 72/., 135/.,
Targums of
263/.
9.
THE HIGHER CRITICISM AND LITERATURE.Chronicles, from their supplementary and, through
The Books ofbeen a favouritevariations
their genealogical material, their unedifying character,field of
have neverlitera-
study and investigation, hence their
ture has always been relatively meagre.
The books
also, in their
from the other canonicaldifficulties.
writings, presented to early
students peculiar
Jewish scholars in the period of thethe 60;
Talmud regarded them with suspicion, and later shrank from many problems which their genealogies presented (JE. IV. p.R. Simon, Hist. Crit. du V. Test.
L
IV.).
Jerome, on the other
hand, was extravagant in their valuation, declaring,thinks himself acquainted with the sacred writings
"He who
knowtureis
these books only deceives himself " (Episl.
and does not ad Paulinum de
Studio Scriplurarum).
And again, "All knowledge of the Scripcontained in these books " (Prof, in libr. Paralip., Episl.
ad Domnionem). This valuation rested, however, without doubt upon an allegorical interpretation and not upon any apprehensionof the real character of 1
and
2
Ch.
No
one seems to have
fol-
Digitized by
THE HIGHER CRITICISMlowed Jeromein his estimate,
45
and while the books were genby the few Jewish and Christian scholars who commented upon them through the general assertion that they restederally vindicated
upon authentic sources and by explaining away all appearances of error, yet at the same time their discrepancies were made the basisof
arguments against the authority of the sacred Scriptures
(cf.
Calmet, Cotnm. in V. T. IV. p. 510).the narratives of Chronicles
(Spinoza had ridiculed the
attempts of Jewish scholars to remove the discrepancies between
and those
of the earlier
books and ex-
pressed his wonder that they had been received into the sacred
Canon by
thoseix.
who rejectedx.)
the Apocryphal books, Trac. Theol.
PolUici, cc.
and
G. F. Oeder
in his Freie
Untersuchungen
tiber einige
Biicher
des A. T. (1771) spoke of their
many corruptions (Ke.). But for real criticism and a worthy explanation we begin naturally with theintroduction of
Eichhom (1780-1782, 3rd
ed. 1803).
Eichhorn
went beyond the simple assertion of the Chronicler's use of authentictions
and reliable sources to a theory upon which the variaand agreements between Chronicles and the earlier booksIn regard to the genealogies he recognised
might be explained.that the Chronicler
drew from
'the earlier canonical books,
but
along with them he held that he had access to registers carefullykept by the Levites and preserved in the Temple, serving astitles to
inheritances.
These
registers, subject to copyists' mis-
takes,
were not always repeated
in their
complete form and
many1
pedigrees were abridged, hence the genealogical variations in
Ch.
The
basis of the Chronicler's description of
David and Solomon
was an old life of those two monarchs, also the basis of the narratives in 1 and 2 S. and 1 K., which in the course of transmission through many hands had suffered many changes, and in which theChronicler also
made
changes, such as his introduction of Satan,
the kindling of sacrifices
by
fire, etc.;
also
from
historic records
the Chronicler mentioned the
lists
of the priests
and
Levites, the
contributions for the Temple, and other things of a similar nature.
various works cited by the Chronicler such as "the words of Shemaiah the Prophet and Iddo the Seer" (2 Ch. ia'), "the Midrash of the prophet Iddo" (2 Ch. 13"), " the words of Jehu" (2 Ch.
The
Digitized by
46
I
AND
2
CHRONICLES
ao M ), the writing of " Isaiah the son of Amoz " (a Ch. 36"), and the works mentioned in 2 Ch. 32" $y ', Eichhora regarded as distinct writings of
contemporaries of Israel's kings,
now
lost;
while
the Midrash of the
Book
Judah andKings of
Israel (2
Kings and the Book of the Kings of Ch. 25" 27' 28* 35" 36*) and the Book of theoflast
Israel (2
Ch. 20") were secondary works; the
two
being one and the same work and identical with theChronicles of the Kings of Judah cited in11
Book
of the
Eichhora held strongly to the reliability ofcareful use of historical sources
and 2 K. (Einl.* ii. 595). and 2 Ch., owing to thecriticised by He, by com-
by the author. This representative view of Eichhorn was sharply(in his BeitrSge zur Einleiiung,
De Wetteparison,
1806).
showed that Eichhora's supposition of the Chronicler's 1 and 2 S. and 1 and 2 K. was untenable. No real evidence was present that both the authors of the canonical books and the Chronicler had drawn their material from the same source; but far more likely all common passages were due to the use by the Chronicler of the canonical books. De Wette then examined the variations between the writings and heuse of the underlying sources of
came marks of his late period, and alterations of meaning, and that his additions were marked by a preference for the concerns of the Levites, a love of marvels, apologies and preference for Judah and hatred of Israel, and embellishments of the history of Judah. Thus the unreliability of the Chronicler wasshowedthat through the Chronicler
slovenly or careless writing, corifusions
abundantly shown.
Of
the Chronicler's sources
writers," he said,
De Wette made little. "Several "might have taken part in producing our presentabout that ? But as the worklies
Chronicles.it is
Who will contendentirely of
one character and one individuality and before us may be assigned to one author " (BeitrUge, p. 61). The questhustion of the reliability of the Chronicler
was largely bound up
in that
of the Pentateuch, and of the general view of the Old TestamentScriptures.
Scholars or writers of a so-called rationalistic tend-
ency disparaged these books and accepted the conclusions of De Wette (a good example is seen in F. W. Newman's History of the
Hebrew Monarchy,
1847), while
on the other hand conservative or
Digitized by
THE HIGHER CRITICISMorthodox scholars held the general view of Eichhornsources and defended the trustworthiness of1
47in regard to
and 2 Ch. throughout. Even upon those of a freer tendency, De Wette's work made less of an impression than might have been expected. Bertholet,
who was willing to accept De Wette's low estimate ofworth of Chronicles (Einl.ofIII. p. 983),
the historical
argued
in behalf of the use
common sources by the writers of Kings and Chronicles. Ewald also, who had a clear conception of the general character of the books, still in his history used them as a source of information very nearly upon a par with the other Old Testament books. The view in general was that the Chronicler, while often introducing the notions of his own age, yet carefully followed his sources, which, though more free and homiletic than the older canonical books intheir treatment of history, yet
were scarcely
inferior as records of
history
though when the two could not be reconciled the former(Cf. Bertheau's treat-
were to be received as of greater authority.
ment throughout his commentary, 1854, 1873; Dillmann, PRE.II. p.
694, 1854,
PRE*
p. 224, 1878.)
DebyJ.
Wette's work was answered twelve years later in a small treatise
G. Dahler (De Librorum Paralipomenon
Auctoritatc atque Fide
Historica Argenlorali, 1819).
Each1
alleged discrepancy, taken
up
in
Ch. and through the two books, was examined by itself and explained away or harmonised; and the author concluded concerning the Chronicler: "Absolvendum turn esse ab istis injustis criminationibus, etfidemejus kistoricam, puram esse atque integrant."order from the beginning of
Dahler, as most of the apologiststhat the
who
followed him, overlooked the fact
judgment of a work must be determined by the impression made by its phenomena grouped as a whole and that phenomena taken singly can ordinarily be explained away. It had been the great merit of De Wette's treatise that he "shaped the superabundant material to conveythe right impression."
Dahler's work was refuted by C. W. P. Gramberg in Die Chronik nach ihrem geschichtiichem character and ihrer GloubwOrdigheit gepri/t (Halle, 1823). This work was of little weight, owing to its charge of extreme falsification by the Chronicler. Ini833,C.F.Keil published his apology for Chronicles A pohgetischer Versuch flier die Backer der Chronik und fiber die Integretit des Bitches
This work, essentially in its main contentiort, reproduced later Intro, and Commentary on 1 and 2 Ch., held, as already noted above (see p. 20), that the Chronicler did not draw his material fromEzra.in his
OT.
Digitized by
48
I
AND
2
CHRONICLESlist
the earlier canonical books of the OT., unless in thefamilies (i Ch. i-2),
of the patriarchal
and
t
and
2 S.
and
1
and hence the parallelism between i and 2 Ch. and a K. is due to common sources underlying eachCf. examples mentioned above, p. 20.
(the view of Eichhorn).
The
varied charges brought by
De
Wette were refuted
in detail
and the
Chronicler was absolved from
all error
of statement, although later Keilguilty
recognised in one instance that he(Intro. II. p. 82).
was
of
misapprehension
In 1834 appeared Kritische Untersuchung iiber die biblische Chronik, by F. C. Movers, a German pastor residing near Bonn. This work, although defending in a large measure the historical reliability of 1 and 2 Ch., since the author held to the Mosaic origin of the Levitical institutions, was characterised by much critical acumen. In the matter of sources the author advanced views practically identical with thosecurrent at present.
He
held that the Chronicler used
first
of all the
and secondly one other source, the Midrash or Commentary upon the Book of Kings. This Book of Kings was neither our Book of Kings, nor the "Chronicles" or Annals mentioned in Kings, but a work which the authors of Samuel and Kings had used, and whose author had made use of the Chronicles or Annals mentioned in Kings. But the Midrash or Commentary on this Book of Kings was a post-exilic work more didactic than purely historical, a connecting link between the canonical Scriptures and the Apocrypha. Of this work and of the canonical Scriptures the Chronicler was essentially a copyist. Movers' view in this respect is that of Benzinger and Kittel, alreadycanonical books,
mentioned (seein his
p. 25).
The problem of
Chronicles
was alsod.
discussed in detail by
Die Geschichtlichen BOcherwere similar to
AT.
(1866).
K. H. Graf, Graf examined the
narratives of Chronicles in the light of those of the canonical books,his conclusions
and
De Wette's respecting the work as a tendency writing largely unhistorical in character. He differed from Movers,holding that the Chronicler was not a mere copyist and that to him as an independent writer belonged the characteristics of his work and not
On the other hand, he rejected the notion that to a Midrasbic source. he had no other sources than the canonical books and allowed historicalreminiscences in hisof our problemis
new
material.
The
next most fruitful discussion
Wellhausen's
brilliant
chapter on Chronicles in his
Prolegomena turGeschicMe Israels (1878, 1883, Eng. trans. 1885). Therethe position of
De
Wette
is
restated
and the Chronicler's work
is
ex-
hibited essentially in the character
which we have given, although we
are inclined to find
more of
historical reminiscence in certain instances
than Wellhausen allows, but his sketch of the Chronicler's work as a whole is correct. For the recent views of Benzinger and Kittel respecting the composition of Chronicles see pp. 25 /.
Digitized by
LITERATURE
49
LITERATURE.(Authors of the most important works are indicated by the heavy type.)
Text.S. Baer andbyDel.);
F. Delitzsch, Liber Chronicorum (1888) (text
with critical and Massoretic appendices by Baer and an introduction
David Ginsburg,R.
O'ainsi O'H'aj
min
(1804), pp.
1676-
1808 (text based upon the Bomberg Bible of 1524-5, with variant readings in the foot-notes);
(1895) (in Haupt's Sacred Books of (hecritical
notes trans,
The Books of Chronicles in Hebrew OT.) (the unpointed text, with by B. W. Bacon); R. Kittel, Biblia Hebroica, II.Kittel,
(1906) pp. 1222-1320 (text with foot-notes citing variants in mss., Vrss.,
and
Bibl. sources).
Translations and Commentaries. Hieronymus tiones Hebraicce in Paralipomena in appendix to vol.(pub. in Migne's Patrologia Latina, vol. 23,coll.
(d.
420), Quaes-
III. of his
works
1365-1402); Theodoret,
Bishop of Cyrus (1st half of 5th cent.), Quaestiones in Paralipomena (pub. in Migne's Patrologia Graca, vol. 80, coll. 801-58); Procopius Gazsus (1st half of 6th cent.), Commenlarii in Paralipomena (pub. inMigne's Patrologia Graxa,vol. 87,
part
I.
coll.
1201-20);
Rabanus
Maurusin(1
(c.
776-856), Commentaria in libros duos Paralipomenon (pub.vol.
Migne's Patrologia Latina,
109, coll. 279-540);
David Kimhi
160-1235) (Kimhi's commentary on Ch. was pub. in the Rabbinic Bible of 1547 and elsewhere); Levi ben Gerson (1288-1344) wrote com.
on Ch. (Rich. Simon, Hist. Crit. p. 28); Alphonsus Tostatus (Tostado), Comment, (on hist, books of the Bible, 1507); R. Joseph fil. David Aben Jechija (Comment, in Hagiogr. 1538) (Carpzov); R. Isaac bar R. Salomo Jabez (Hagiogr. Constantinople) (Carpzov); Basil. Zanchius, In omnes divinos libros notationes (1553); Erasmus Sarcerius (1560) (Carpzov); Vict. Strigel, Libb. Sam., Reg., et Paralipom. (1591); Lud. Lavater, Comm. in Paralip. (1599); Sebastian. Leonhardus (1613) (Carpzov); Nic. Serarius, Comment, in libr. Reg. el Paralip. (1617); Casp. Sanctius, Comment, in 4 libr. Reg. et 2 Paralipom. (1625); Jac. Bonfrerius, Comment, in libr. Reg. et Paralip. (1643); Hug. Grotius,Annotatt. in Vet. Test. (1644) (Paralip. in edition of 1732 (Basil) vol.I.
pp. 175-89); Arthur Jackson,Scrip.; or Annot.
Help for
the Understanding of the
Holy
Thomas Malvenda, CommentariaAnnot. Parol,(in.
on the Hist, part of the OT. 2 vols. (1643 and 1646); in sacram Scripturam (1650); Christ.foil.
Schotanus, in Biblioth. historic sacra; V. T. vol. II. (1662); D. Brenius,
Opera Theologia, 1666,.. .
21-23); Fran.
Burmann,
Comment.
.
.
Paralip.
(1660-83); Jacob Cappel, Observalumes
in Lib. Paralip. (in Comment, et Not. Crit. in V. T.1689, pp. 651-4); S. Patrick,
by Lud. Cappel,
A
Commentary upon
the Historical Books
of the
OT.
(1694; Ch. in
new
edition, vol. II. (1842) pp. 464-618); Jo.
Digitized by
5Clericus,
I
AND
2
CHRONICLESTest. vol.
Commentarius in Vetus
IL (1708) pp. 519-640;exegg. in loca
Matthew Henry, An Expositionin vol. II. 1708);
of the Historical Books of the O. T. (Ch.sel. critt. philott.. . .
H. B. Starck, NolaPent
dubia ac
difficiliora
and Rambach, Libros Hagiographos V. T., J. H. Mich, wrote on 1 Ch. and Rambach on 2 Ch.); S. J. Mauschberger, Comm. in LL. Paralip. . (1758); J. D. Michaelis, Uebersetzung des A T. mil A nmerkk.fUr Ungelehrte, vol. XII. (1785) pp. 151-310 (the trans.) and pp. 171-304 of app. (notes); A. Calmet, Commentarius Literalis in Omnes Libros Testamenti, vol. IV.. .
(1714); J. H. Michaelis Annott. in Parol. (1720) (in Uberiores Adnotationes in
Chron.,
(1791) pp. 512-827;1821);
Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible (Ch. in vol. II. F. J. V. Maurer, Commentarius Grammaticus Criticus in Vetus Testamentum, vol. I. (1835) pp. 232-44; J. Benson, The HolyandPractical Notes (Ch. in vol. II.etc.'
Bible with Critical, Explanatory
1850, pp. 233-388);(vol. III. of
Chr. Wordsworth, Kings, Chronicles,Bible with Notes
(1868)
The Holy
and
Introductions); C. F. Keil,
Kommentar iiber d. AT. Eng. by Andrew Harper, 1872); B. Neteler, Die Bucher der biblischen Chronik (1872); E. Bertheau,~flcA#r der Chronik* (1873) (in Kurzgef. Exeget. Handbuch turn AT.); George Rawlinson, Chronicles (1873) (in vol. III. of The Holy Bible, edited by F. C. Cook); O. Zockler, in Lange's Bibelwerk (1874) (Eng. trans, by J. G. Murphy); E. Reuss,Bilcher der Chronik (1870) (in Biblischertrans,
Chronique ecclisiastique de Jerusalem (1878) (La Bible, IV. part); Clair, Les Paralipomines (1880); Vilmar, Josua bis Chronika (1882) (inPrakt. Erkl. der Heil. Schrift herausgegeben von Chr. Mailer); C. J. Ball, in Bishop Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (1883); P. C.
Baker, I. and II. ChroniclesExeget.
(in
The Pulpit Commentary
Exell), 2 vols. (1884); S. Oettli,
Kommentar z. AT.); M.
of Spence and Bucher der Chronik (1889) (in Kurzgef. J. Tedeschi and S. D. Luzzatto, Com-
mentar tu den BB. Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah und Chronik (1890); J. Robertson, in Book by Book (1892), pp. m-19; W. H. Bennett, The
Books of Chronicles (1894) (in The Expositor's Bible); E. Kautzsch, Die Heilige Schrift des Alien Testaments (1894), translation, pp. 9361012, critical notes in supplement, pp. 91-98; R. G. Moulton, Chronicles (1897)
(The Modern Reader's
Bible);
W.
E. Barnes, The Book
of Chronicles (1900) (Cambridge Bible); I. Benzinger, Die Biicher der Chronik (1901) (in Kurzer Hand-Commentar z. AT.); A. Hughes-
Games, The Books of Chronicles (1902) (Temple Bible); R. Battel, Die Biicher der Chronik (1902) (in Handkommentar z. AT.); R. de Hummelauer, Comment, in Librum I Paralipom. (1905); W. R. HarveyJellie, Chronicles (1906) (The Century Bible). Critical Discussions. Richard Simon, Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament (1685), Book I. Chap. iv. pp. 27 /.; Jon. Gottlob Carpzov, Introductio ad Libros Canonicos Bibliorum Veteris Testamenti (1731),
k
VDigitized by
LITERATUREPartI.
51
J. G. Eichhom, Einl.* II. (1803) pp. 579-601; de Wette, Krilischer Versuch iiber die GlaubenswOrdigichkeit der Backer der Chronik (1806) (Beitrdge sur Einl.Jn d. AT. vol. I.); L. Bertholdt, Einl., Part 3 (1813), pp. 963-91; J. G. Dahler, De
pp. 270-303;
W. M. L.
librorum Paralipom. auctoritate alque fide histerica (1819); C. P.
W.
Gramberg, Die Chronik nach ihrem geschichtlichen Charakler und ihrer Glaubwilrdigkeit neu gepriift (1823); C. P. W. Gramberg, de geloofwaardigheid en het belong van de Chron. voor de Bijb. Gesch. (1830); Die BUcher der Chronik. Ihr Verhdltniss tu den BUchern Samuels und der KSnige; ihre GlaubwOrdigkcit, und die Zeit ihrer Ab/assung, in Theologische Quartalschrift (Tiibingen, 1831), pp. 201-83; C. F. Keil, Apologetischer Versuch aber die Chronik (1833); F. C. Movers, Kritische Untersuchungen aber die biblisehe Chronik (1834); W. M. L. de Wette, Einleitung in d. AT. 1 1. (1852) pp. 237-259; T. H. Home, Introduction to the Critical Study of the Holy Scriptures" (1856), vol. II. pp. 673-688; K. H. Graf, Die Gefangenschaft und Bekehrung Manasse's, 2 Chr. 33, in Theologische Studien und Kritiken (1859), pp. 467-94; J. Bleek, Einl. (i860) pp. 371-401 (4th ed. 1878, Eng. trans, from and ed. 1869); Gerlach, Die Gefangenschaft und Bekehrung Manasse's, in Theol. Studien u. Kritiken (1861), pp. 503-44; W. H. Green, Date of Books of Chronicles, in Princeton Review, XXXV. (1863) p. 409; K. H. Graf, Die Geschichtlichen Backer d. AT. (1866) pp. 114-247; Abr. Rahmer,
Ein Lateinischer Commentar aus demChronikkritisch verglichen mil d.
9.
Jahrhund.
t.
d.
BOchern
d.
Judischen Quelien (1866);
DeI.
Wette(1869)in
Schr. Einl. (1869) 224-33;
H. Ewald, History of Israel*
pp. i(x)ff.;
Kohler and Rosenberg, Das Targum der Chronik,Chr.2. 4.
JOd.
Zeitschrift (1870), pp. 72/., 135/., 263/.; J.et
Wellhausen, De Gcntibus
Familiis Judais qua
1
enumerantur (1870); C. F. Keil,
Einl* (1873) | 138-144 (Eng. trans, from and ed., 1870); W. R. Smith, Chronicles, Books of, in Encycl. Britannica* (1878); R. O. Thomas,
A Key to(1881);
Books of Samuel and the Corresponding Parts of Chronicles The Book of the Chronicles, in Sunday School Times (1883), Nov. 24, pp. 739/.; G. T. Ladd, The Doctrine of Sacredthe
Frz. Delitzsch,
Scripture (1883),
I.
pp. 108/., 373/., 546/., 686/.; E. Schrader,
COT.
[1883] (1888) II. pp. 52-59; J.
Wellhausen, Prolegomena
(1883), pp.
176-237, Eng. trans. (1885) pp. 171-227; J. L. Bigger, The Battle Address of Abijah, 2 Chr. 13: 4-12, in OT. Sludent,vo\. 3 (1883-4), pp. 6-16; F. Brown, The Books of Chronicles ivith Reference to the
Books of Samuel, in Andover Review,
Neue Untersuchungen(1884), pp. 403-50;to the
I. (1884) pp. 405-26; MUhling, aber die Genealogien der Chronik 1, 1-9, und
deren Verhdltniss turn Zweck dieses Buches, in Tkeolog. Quartalschrift
W. H. Brown, The OT. Explained, Giving the Key Harmony of the OT. Writings, and espec. the Books ofK., Ch., etc.crit.
(1885); Comely, Hist, el
Introductio in V. T. libros sacros
Compen-
Digitized by
52dium,
I
AND311
2/.;
CHRONICLESA. Kuenen, Ondertoek*I.
II. i (1887), pp.
(1887) pp.
433-520, German trans., Bird, part I, div. a (1890), pp. 103-89; M. S. Terry, Chronicles and the Mosaic Legislation (1888), in Essays onPentaleuchol Criticism (edited by T.
W. Chambers, and republished under title Moses and his Recent Critics, 1889), pp. 213-45; E. Alker, Die Chronologic der Backer KSnige und Paralipomenon . . . (1889); B. Stade, GeschJ (1889) I. pp. 81-84; C. H. Cornill, Einleitung (1891), pp. 208-276, Eng. trans. (1907) pp. 225-39; L. B. Paton, Alleged Discrepancies between Books of Chronicles and Kings, in Presbyterian Quarterly (Richmond, Va.), vol. 5 (1891), pp. 587-610; G. Wildeboer, Origin of the Canon of the OT. [1891] (1895) pp. 142 /., 152, 162; K. Budde, Vermutungen turn "Midrasch des Buches der KOnige," in
ZAW.
vol. 12 (1892), pp. 37-51; A. C. Jennings, Chronicles, in The Thinker, vol. 2 (1892), pp. 8-16, 199-206, 393-401; C. G. Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures (1892), pp. 447 ff., 454, 483; H. E. Ryle, Canon of the OT. (1892) pp. 138/., 145, 151, 162; W. R. Smith, OTJC* (1892) pp.
pp. 157-67 (Bemerkungen
14/., 182/.; H. Winckler, Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen (1892), t. chronik als geschichtsquelle); A. C. Hervey,
The Book of Chronicles in Relation to the Pentateuch (1893); H. H. Howorth, The True Septuagint Version of Chronicles-Ezro-Nehemiah,m
The Academy
(1893), vol. 44, PP-
nf-i E. K8nig,Infallible
W. Sanday, Inspiration (1893) (Bampton Lectures), pp.398, 443, 455;
Einl. (1893) % 54; ioa, 244, 2$sff.,. .
H. Varley, The
Word
.
the Historical
Accuracy of the Books of Kings and Chronicles (1893); R. B. Girdlestone, Deuterographs, Duplicate Passages in the OT., their bearing on the Text
and Compilation,Review,Driver,I.
etc.
(1804);
T. F. Wright, Chronicles,
in
New Church
(1894) pp. 455-6;
W.
Bacher, Der
Name
der Backer der
Chronik in der Septuaginta in
ZAW.
vol. 15 (1895), pp.
305-8; S. R.r.
The Speeches in2,
Chronicles, in Exp. 5th series, vol.
(1895) pp.
241-56, vol.Chronicles;
1895, pp. 286-308;reply, in
Valpy. French,
The Speeches in
a
Exp. 5th
series, vol.
2 (1895), pp. 140-152;
F. Kaulen, Paralipomena, in Kirchenlexikon, vol. 9 (1895), pp. 1479/.; S. Krauss, Bibl. VSlkertafel in Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, in
Monatsschrift fur Geschichle u. Wissenschaft d. Judenthums, vol. 39 (1895) pp. i-n, 49-63; G. Wildeboer, Lit. d. AT. (1895), pp. 404-420;
W. E.vol.
Barnes, The Midrashic Element in Chronicles, in Exp. 5th series,
W.
(1896) pp. 170-242; 4 (1896), pp. 426-39; G. B. Gray, E. Barnes, The Religious Standpoint of the Chronicler, in AJSL.
HPN.
XIII. (1896-7) pp. 14-20; W. E. Barnes, Chronicles a Targum, in Expos. T. VIII. (1806-7) PP- 316-19; T. K. Cheyne, On 2 Ch. 14 9,:
etc.,
in
NamesFr.
Expos. T. VIII. (1896-7) pp. 431/; H. L. Gilbert, Forms of in I. Chronicles 1-7, in AJSL. XIII. (1896-7) pp. 279-98;the Cushite, in Expos. T. VIII. (1896-7) pp. 378/.;
Hommel, SerahE. Barnes,
W.
An
Apparatus Criticus
to Chronicles
in the Peshitta
Digitized by
LITERATURE
53
Version (1897); W. D. Crockett, A Harmony of the Books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, in the Text of the Version of 1884 (1897); W. E. Barnes, Errors in Chronicles, in Expos. T. IX. (1897-8) p. 521; John F.Stenning, Chronicles in the Peshitta, in Expos. T. IX. (1897-8) pp. 45-7;
W. Bacher, Zu I. Chron. 7 12, in ZAW. F. Brown, Chronicles I. and II., in DB.:
vol. 18 (1898), pp.I.
236-8;
(1898) pp. 389-397; A.
Klostermann, Die Chronik, in PRE.'
III. (1898) pp.
85-98; SchUrer,
Geschf (1898)II.i.
pp. 309, 339/., III. p. 311, Eng. trans, (from. 2nd ed.) pp. 309, 340, iii. p. 162; W. J. Beecher, Is Chronicler VeraciousII.
Historian for Post-exilian Period? in The Bible Student and ReligiousOutlook (Columbia, S. C),
Zur
3 (1899), pp. 385-90; Adolf Bitchier, und der Tempelpsalmen, in ZAW. vol. 19 (1899), pp. 96-133, 329-44; Grigor Chalateanz, Die BUcher Paralipom. nach der Sltesten. Armen. Vebers., etc. (1899); Hope W.vol.
Geschichle der Tempelmusik
Hogg, The Genealogy of Benjamin; a Criticism of I. Chron. JQR. XI. (1899) pp. 102-14; A. van Hoonacker, Le Sacerdocedansla
VIII., inLtvitiqucel
Loi
el
dans VHistoire (1899), pp. 21-116 (Les prttres
Us
levites
dans le
livre des Chroniques);
E. Kautzsch, The Literature of the
OT.
(1899) pp. 121-8 (trans., with revision, from supplements to Die Heil. Schr. d. AT.'); J. Koberle, Die Tempelsdnger im AT. (1899) pp. 81-150 (Chronika); O. Seesemann, Die Darstellungsweise der Chronik,in Mitth. u.
Nachr.f.
d.
Evang. Kirche in Russland, 55 (1899), pp. 1-16;
W. R. Smithcoll.
and S. R. Driver, Chronicles, Books of, in EBi. I. (1899) 763-72; T. G. Soares, The Import of Chronicles as a Piece of
Religio-hislorical Literature, in
Am.
Jour, of Theo. III. (1899) pp. 251-
Notes on Genealogies of the Tribe of Levi in 1 Chron. 23-26, in JQR. XII. (1900) pp. 291-8; J. A. Howlett, Wellhausen and the Chronicler, in The Dublin Review, vol. 126 (1900), pp. 391-411; K. D. Macmillan, Note Concerning the date of Chronicles, in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, XI. (1900) pp. 507-1 1; Hope W. Hogg, The Ephraimile Genealogy (1 Ch. 7 20/.), in JQR. XIII. (1900-01) pp.74;Berlin,:
M.
G. O. Little, The Royal Houses of Israel and Judah (1901); J. Marquart, The Genealogies of Benjamin, in JQR. XIV. (1902) pp. 343-51; J. W. Rothstein, D. Genealogie d. Kgs. Jojachin und seiner147-54;
Nachkommen (1 Chron. 3 17-24) in Gesch. Beleuchtung (1902); W. H. Bennett, Chronicles in JE. IV. (1903), pp. 59-63; Mos. Friedlande. Genealog. Sludien 1. A T. D. Ver&nderlichkeit d. Namen in d.:,
Stammlisten d. Backer d. Chronik (1903);Versions of Chronicles, Ezra, andSociety of Biblical Archaology,
C. C. Torrey, The Greekin
Nehemiah,
Proceedings of the
The
(1903) pp. 139/.; W. J. Beecher, Added Section in I Chron. XI-XII, in The Bible Student and1,
XXV.
Teacher, vol.
New
Series (1904), pp. 247-50;
R.
St.
A. Macalister,
The RoyalR.St.
Potters 1 Chron. 4", in Expos. T.
XVI. (1905) pp. 379/.;
A. Macalister, The Craftsmen's Guild of the Tribe of Judah, in
Digitized by
54
I
AND
2
CHRONICLES
Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement (1905), pp. 243-353, 3*8-342; P. Asmussen, Priesterkod. u. Chr. in ihrem Verh. tu einand., in Theolog. Studien u. Kritiken (1906), pp. 165-179; G. Tandy, / a. II Chron., an Elementary Study in Criticism (Interpr., Oct.) (mentioned in
Theolog. Jahresbe., 1906);(1007), pp. 67 n.i,
S.
A. Cook, Critical Notes oni,
98
n. 3,
104 n.
114/., 118 n.
1;
OT. Hist. H. H. Howorth,VII Daniel and
Some Unconventional Views on(1907) pp. 31-38, 61-69;S-
the Text of the Bible.
Chronicles, in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaology,
XXIX.
K- Mosiman, Zusammenstellung u. Vergleichung d. Paralleltexte d. Chr. u. d. alteren BUcher d. AT. (1907); S. R. Driver, LOT." (1908) pp. 516-540; C. C. Torrey, The Apparatus for the Textual Criticism of Chronicles-Etra-Nchemiah, in
Harper Memorial II. (1908) pp. 55-m; W. E. Barnes, The David of the Book of Samuel and the David of the Book of Chronicles, in Exp. 7th Series. No. 37 (1909), pp. 49-59; A. Klosterraann, Chronicles, in The New Schaff-Henog Encyl. vol. III. (1909) pp. 68-71; C. C. Torrey, The Chronicler as Editor and as Independent Narrator, in
AJSL. XXV.
(1909) pp. 157-73. 188-217.
Digitized by
A COMMENTARY ON 1 CHRONICLES
Digitized by
Digitized by
COMMENTARY ONI-IX.
1
CHRONICLES
GENEALOGICAL TABLES WITH GEOGRAPHICAL
AND HISTORICAL NOTICES.introduce the genealogies of
I.
Primeval genealogies with a list of kings and phylarchs
of
Edom.
This chapter serves to
the tribes of Israel by showing Israel's place
among
the nations
and thus corresponds
to the ethnic discussions withIts
which modis
em
writers frequently open their histories.
matter
derived
entirely
from Gn. 1-36.
All the genealogies of those chapters are
included in this compilation except that of the descendants of
Cain (Gn. 4"- M ).lists
The
author's
method
of abridgment, in giving
of
names (w.
'' etal.) without stating their relation to
one
another, shows that he
assumed
his readers to
have been thor-
oughly familiar with the narratives of Genesis.While the sourcethe chapteris is
dear, the question has recently been raised whether
substantially in the
Chronicler or whether an original nucleusadditions until the genealogical
which it was left by the by him received numerous material of Gn. was exhausted. Ben-
form
in
w. '" '> "- The Vatican text of OK lacks w. '-- f) means renown, i.e., glory, and apparently was a name of Israel (cj. Gn. 9" Blessed be Yahweh the God of Shem, i.e., of Israel).flow] (v. Gn. 5" 6' 7" 9" io ) superseding possibly the name Canaan in an earlier1-
list
of
Noah's three sonsII.
(cf.
Gn. g u J)
is
possibly derived from
Kimet the Egyptians' nameEBi.col.
of their country
(DB.,
art.
Ham;
1204 absolutely denies
this connection).
Hamappro-
stands for Egypt in Ps. 78" io5'priately
"
106".
Thus
Ham
represented the peoples southward from Palestine.
Digitized by
60Japhelh](v.
I
CHRONICLES
Gn. 5" 6" 7" 9'- io'- ' f). According to Gn. 9" the word is from the root (ilfiD), meaning " to be open " (so BDB., Margoliouth in DB. suggests a derivation from nC "to be fair)," but the real origin is still obscure. It primarily comes1
without doubt from some appellation of the peoples or countrylying to the north
and west
of Israel, because in those directions').
the descendants of Japhelh are found (w.
Japheth
may
have represented originally the Phoenicians, since the expressiondwelling in the tents ofjacent to Palestine
Shem (Gn. 9")
points to a land ad-
(DB. Extra',
vol. p. 80).
2.
jj'ji]
so too Gn. 5
but -
position of Dan before the sons of Rachel, instead of after, is striking.
Otherwise the order
the same as in
Gn. 3S ,,b " and Ex.
(omitting Joseph), late priestly narratives (P), where
Dan
follows
Benjamin.
The tribes,
however, are not enumerated uniformly in
Digitized by
82the
I
CHRONICLESi'"
Old Testament,et al.
cf.
Gn. 46