I. Name

1. The Hebrew name is Divre hayyamim, "Events of Days," or "Annals of the Times," a term found frequently in Samuel and Kings, 2 Kings 14:18. The Septuagint introduced the title ta paraleipomena, "Things omitted," as if the book was intended to supply the defects of the earlier historical records. This is such an inadequate name that Jerome called it a Chronicle, which adequately renders the Hebrew name and has been generally adopted in the later versions.

2. Like Samuel and Kings, Chronicles originally formed but one book in the Hebrew, the division having been made first in the Septuagint and continued to the present time, even our printed Hebrew Bibles now making it. There is no good reason for the division.

II. Position in the Canon

Chronicles does not stand in the Hebrew Bible with the other historical books, but in the third division, which includes works of a miscellaneous character. Some have argued that this is because of its very late origin, or because it was less directly inspired than the older writings. A much better reason is that the Jews did not regard the writer as a prophet, and so did not include it among the prophetical writings, while they regarded it as of equal value with the other inspired books.

Its place in the third division of the Hebrew Bible is not uniform. The Masoretic writers placed it first among the books of this division, while in our printed Hebrew Bibles it is the last. The Septuagint placed it next to Kings so as to bring all the historical books together, and our English version follows this order.

III. Contents

While the unity of the book is so manifest as to render proof of the fact needless, there are well-defined sections which show how steadily the writer kept his purpose before him. The book begins with Adam and surveys the history to the restoration of the Jews under Cyrus.

It may be divided into four sections:

1. The first section, 1 Chron. Chs. 1 to 9, gives a genealogical record of the nation down to the advent of David as king. This is varied occasionally by a brief geographical or other explanatory note, 1 Chron. 6:49, the purpose of the writer being to lead the reader to his theme as illustrated in the history of Judah, the northern kingdom not passing under review.

2. The second section, 1 Chron. Chs. 10-29, relates the history of David from the time of Saul's death to the end of his reign. In this the special design of the writer reveals itself, for he does not dwell upon his civil administration or tell of his personal character as fully as do Samuel and Kings, although he has much in common with them, but enters with great minuteness of detail upon his devotion to the religious welfare of the people, as seen in his care of the ark, 1 Chron. Chs. 13-16; his preparation for building the Temple, 1Chron. Ch. 22; and his careful arrangements for the conduct of its service, 1 Chron. Chs. 23-29.

3. The third section, 2 Chron. Chs. 1-9, tells of Solomon, the writer limiting himself almost entirely to his choice of wisdom, Ch. 1; his building and dedicating the Temple, Chs. 2-7; and other public works, Ch. 8; his wisdom and wealth, Ch. 9.

4. The remainder of the work, 2 Chron. Chs. 10-36, tells of the kingdom of Judah, after a brief statement in regard to the separation of the two kingdoms upon the death of Solomon, Ch. 10. In this section it is to be noted that the writer confines himself to those kings who were prominent in religious matters, as Asa, Hezekiah, Josiah, etc., and closes his work with the welcome announcement of the end of the captivity.

This sketch will show at once why the book of Chronicles was ever written. It is in no sense a condensation of the fuller histories found in the older books from Genesis to Kings, but a history of the nation from a special point of view. It is not even a religious history of the nation, but a history of the nation as illustrated and explained by the Temple service. Hence the writer enlarges upon the reigns of those kings who were most prominent in perfecting that service, and even concerning them he tells almost nothing except what they did along that line. He dwells with delight on the gradual enrichment of that service and traces through generations the efforts made to give it an outward form in some degree worthy of the exalted character of Jehovah, and make it such as would give suitable expression to the united devotions of the nation.

IV. Historical Character

The historical character of Chronicles has been frequently assailed. In summing up his review of the book in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, Dr. Francis Brown says, "The late date of Chronicles presumably hinders it from being a historical witness of the first order." As a reason for such adverse judgment, besides his late date, he gives the fact that the author manifestly writes for a purpose, he was a man in whom the historical imagination was not largely developed, he was too much controlled by the teaching of the Pentateuch, he was a Levite and a musician, and these habits and convictions, the result of inheritance and of training, determined his mode of writing history.

To all this we reply that the book does not give any just occasion for such adverse criticism. That the writer lived some time after the events of which he writes puts him on a level with most historical writers, and that he writes for a purpose does not necessarily mean that he was not honest in his treatment of facts.

What then are the facts as to the credibility of this book?

So far as the genealogical records are concerned they agree in general with the older historical records, especially in the Pentateuch, while they present some facts not elsewhere mentioned. (Bleek's Int. to the Old Test., I. p. 433.) Passing to the details concerning David and the other kings there is very much in common, often in identical language, with Samuel and Kings, while the writer shows his independence by omitting such facts as do not suit his purpose, or introducing them in a different order of succession from that found in those books. Such items as illustrate his theme he gathers from many sources, but gives us freely the sources to which he has gone for them. That it is not always easy to reconcile Chronicles with other records we freely admit, but is it necessary to impugn an author because we cannot go with him to all his authorities and see that he quotes correctly? Or must we assume that he is always wrong unless we have evidence to prove he is right? If we had fuller knowledge of the documents, doubtless many of these obscurities would quickly disappear.

Further, the writer of Chronicles makes a very generous use of authorities outside the historical books we now possess. No less than sixteen different titles are mentioned, most of which are of a historical character, some of them evidently the same as were used by the author of Samuel and Kings, others, apparently, later documents compiled from those earlier records, and all of them manifestly written by men living in or near the period of which they wrote, 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29; 12:15; 16:11; 26:22; 33:19, etc. Even if these were not all independent works, and the titles indicate that they were not, still the fact is plain that the writer had authorities and was not afraid to have his readers consult them to test the accuracy of his statements Dillmann says, "Chronicles is thoroughly reliable history, being drawn from the official records of the Israelites, which explains the numerous instances in which it coincides, even verbally, with Kings; and where it differs in names, etc., the discrepancy can be explained by textual corruptions either in Chronicles or Kings, or their common source." (Schaff-Herzog, I. p. 468.)

That Chronicles is written in the interests of the Temple service is everywhere manifest. (Kautzsch, The Literature of the Old Testament, p. 124.) A strong priestly tone pervades the book. This is the author's theme and he has a right to examine that side of his nation's history as the authors of Samuel and Kings have to examine other features. That the late time in which he lived and the experience through which the nation had passed since those books were written should throw a different light on many facts, leading to a higher estimate of some events and reducing the estimate of others, is easily understood. But this does not invalidate his work any more than the different estimate put upon certain facts in our own national history by writers who live many years apart, throws discredit on the different writers who have treated them. The writer of Chronicles is not a historian in the proper sense of that term, nor a mere annalist. He writes with the acknowledged purpose of appealing to the religious instincts of his people, to quicken their love for the sanctuary where God is worshiped.

The large numbers found in Chronicles form a serious difficulty, but this is a question by no means peculiar to Chronicles. See 1 Sam. 6:19, where the number of Philistines slaughtered because they looked into the ark of the Lord is first given as seventy and immediately after, without any connection, are added the words "fifty thousand men." Josephus, in relating the incident, says seventy were slain. (Antiq., VI. I, 4.) In 1 Sam. 13:5 the Philistines are represented as having thirty thousand chariots. Both the Greek translation of Lucian and the Peshito have thirty, which seems the more likely number. Chronology is one of the weak points in all ancient records.

After giving these objections all the weight they deserve, the statement of Ewald remains true: "We should deprive ourselves of one of the richest and oldest sources of Davidic 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." (Hist, of Israel, Martensen's Translation, p. 195.)

V. Authorship and Date

The testimony of Jewish writers is in favor of Ezra, 485 B. C, as the author not only of Chronicles but also of Ezra and Nehemiah. The resemblance in style between these books gives much force to the argument that they were all prepared by one person. The close of Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra are so intimate as to indicate that no break occurs in authorship, the one being necessary to complete the other. The same purpose is also manifest in both. So strong is this argument that many modern critics, like Keil, accept it.

But the more general opinion now is that the book is later than Ezra. The genealogy in i Chron. 3:19, although interpreted in different ways by different critics, seems to carry us at least two generations, beyond Ezra. The addition of the title "King of Persia" to the name "Cyrus," in 2 Chron. 36:23, is thought to indicate that the kingdom had been broken up before the book was written. Some claim that the general tone of the book is not that of a contemporary witness, but of one living after radical changes had thoroughly pervaded the life of the people. Such critics generally agree upon about 330 B. C. But some point between these two extremes is more likely to be correct. This question is ably discussed in the Presbyterian and Refonned Review for July, 1900, p. 507.

LITERATURE

Commentaries: Lange, Keil and Delitzsch. For date, see Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1900, p. 507. Stanley, History of The Jewish Church, II. p. 461. Introductions of Driver, Bleek, Keil. Articles in Bible Dictionaries of Smith and Hastings and in Encyclopediadia Britannica.