, i.e., verba dierum, quod significantius chronicon totius divinae historiae possumus appellare, qui liber apud nos Paralipomenon primus et secundus inscribitur. Through Hieronymus the name Chronicles came into use, and became the prevailing title.
Contents.-The Chronicles begin with genealogical registers of primeval times, and of the tribes of Israel (1 Chron 1-9); then follow the history of the reign of King David (ch. 10-29) and of King Solomon (2 Chron 1-9); the narrative of the revolt of the ten tribes from the kingdom of the house of David (ch. 10); the history of the kingdom of Judah from Rehoboam to the ruin of the kingdom, its inhabitants being led away into exile to Babylon (ch. 11-36:21); and at the close we find the edict of Cyrus, which allowed the Jews to return into their country (36:22-23). Each of the two books, therefore, falls into two, and the whole work into four divisions. If we examine these divisions more minutely, six groups can be without difficulty recognised in the genealogical part (1 Chron 1-9). These are: (1) The families of primeval and ancient times, from Adam to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and his sons Edom and Israel, together with the posterity of Edom (ch. 1); (2) the sons of Israel and the families of Judah, with the sons and posterity of David (2-4:23); (3) the families of the tribe of Simeon, whose inheritance lay within the tribal domain of Judah, and those of the trans-Jordanic tribes Reuben and Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh (1 Chron 4:24-5:26); (4) the families of Levi, or of the priests and Levites, with an account of the dwelling-places assigned to them (5:27-6:66); (5) the families of the remaining tribes, viz., Issachar, Benjamin, Naphtali, the half-tribe of Manasseh, Ephraim, and Asher (only Dan and Zebulun being omitted), with the genealogy of the house of Saul (7, 8); and (6) a register of the former inhabitants of Jerusalem (9:1-34), and a second enumeration of the family of Saul, preparing us for the transition to the history of the kingdom of Israel (9:35-44). The history of David's kingship which follows is introduced by an account of the ruin of Saul and his house (ch. 10), and then the narrative falls into two sections. (1) In the first we have David's election to be king over all Israel, and the taking of the Jebusite fort in Jerusalem, which was built upon Mount Zion (1 Chron 11:1-9); then a list of David's heroes, and the valiant men out of all the tribes who made him king (11:10-12:40); the removal of the ark to Jerusalem, the founding of his house, and the establishment of the Levitical worship before the ark in Zion (13-16); David's design to build a temple to the Lord (17); then his wars (18-20); the numbering of the people, the pestilence which followed, and the fixing of the place for the future temple (21). (2) In the second section are related David's preparations for the building of the temple (22); the numbering of the Levites, and the arrangement of their service (23-26); the arrangement of the military service (27); David's surrender of the kingdom to his son, and the close of his life (28 and 29).
The history of the reign of Solomon begins with his solemn sacrifice at Gibeon, and some remarks on his wealth (2 Chron 1); then follows the building of the temple, with the consecration of the completed holy place (ch. 2-7). To these are added short aphoristic accounts of the cities which Solomon built, the statute labour which he exacted, the arrangement of the public worship, the voyage to Ophir, the visit of the queen of Sheba, and of the might and glory of his kingdom, closing with remarks on the length of his reign, and an account of his death (8-9). The history of the kingdom of Judah beings with the narrative of the revolt of the ten tribes from Rehoboam (ch. 10), and then in ch. 11-36 it flows on according to the succession of the kings of Judah from Rehoboam to Zedekiah, the reigns of the individual kings forming the sections of the narrative.
Plan and Aim.-From this general sketch of the contents of our history, it will be already apparent that the author had not in view a general history of the covenant people from the time of David to the Babylonian exile, but purposed only to give an outline of the history of the kingship of David and his successors, Solomon and the kings of the kingdom of Judah to its fall. If, whoever, in order to define more clearly the plan and purpose of the historical parts of our book in the first place, we compare them with the representation given us of the history of Israel in those times in the books of Samuel and Kings, we can see that the chronicler has passed over much of the history. (a) He has omitted, in the history of David, not only his seven years' reign at Hebron over the tribe of Judah, and his conduct to the fallen King Saul and to his house, especially towards Ishbosheth, Saul's son, who had been set up as rival king by Abner (2 Sam 1-4 and 9), but in general has passed over all the events referring to and connected with David's family relations.
He makes no mention, for instance, of the scene between David and Michal (2 Sam 6:20-23); the adultery with Bathsheba, with its immediate and more distant results (2 Sam 11:2-12); Amnon's outrage upon Tamar, the slaying of Amnon by Absalom and his flight to the king of Geshur, his return to Jerusalem, his rising against David, with its issues, and the tumult of Sheba (2 Sam 13-20); and, finally, also omits the thanksgiving psalm and the last words of David (2 Sam 22:1-23:7). Then (b) in the history of Solomon there have been left unrecorded the attempt of Adonijah to usurp the throne, with the anointing of Solomon at Gihon, which it brought about; David's last command in reference to Joab and Shimei; the punishment of these men and of Adonijah; Solomon's marriage with Pharaoh's daughter (1 Kings 1:1-3:3); his wise judgment, the catalogue of his officials, the description of his royal magnificence and glory, and of his wisdom (1 Kings 3:16-5:14); the building of the royal palace (1 Kings 7:1-12); and Solomon's polygamy and idolatry, with their immediate results (1 Kings 11:1-40).
Finally, (c) there is no reference to the history of the kingdom of Israel founded by Jeroboam, or to the lives of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, which are related in such detail in the books of Kings, while mention is made of the kings of the kingdom of the ten tribes only in so far as they came into hostile struggle or friendly union with the kingdom of Judah.
But, in compensation for these omissions, the author of the Chronicle has brought together in his work a considerable number of facts and events which are omitted in the books of Samuel and the Kings.
For example, in the history of David, he gives us the list of the valiant men out of all the tribes who, partly before and partly after the death of Saul, went over to David to help him in his struggle with Saul and his house, and to bring the royal honour to him (1 Chron 12); the detailed account of the participation of the Levites in the transfer of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem, and of the arrangements made by David for worship around this sanctuary (ch. 15 and 16); and the whole section concerning David's preparations for the building of the temple, his arrangements for public worship, the regulation of the army, and his last commands (ch. 22-29).
Further, the history of the kingdom of Judah from Rehoboam to Joram is narrated throughout at greater length than in the books of Kings, and is considerably supplemented by detailed accounts, not only of the work of the prophets in Judah, of Shemaiah under Rehoboam (2 Chron 12:5-8), of Azariah and Hanani under Asa (15:1-8; 16:7-9), of Jehu son of Hanani, Jehaziel, and Ebenezer son of Dodava, under Jehoshaphat (19:1-3; 20:14- 20 and 37), and concerning Elijah's letter under Joram (21:12-15); but also of the efforts of Rehoboam (11:5-17), Asa (14:5-7), and Jehoshaphat (17:2,12-19) to fortify the kingdom of Asa to raise and vivify the Jahveworship (15:9-15), of Jehoshaphat to purify the administration of justice and increase the knowledge of the law (17:7-9 and 19:5-11), of the wars of Abijah against Jeroboam, and his victories (13:3-20), of Asa's war against the Cushite Zerah (14:8-14), of Jehoshaphat's conquest of the Ammonites and Moabites (20:1-30), and, finally, also of the family relations of Rehoboam (11:18-22), the wives and children of Abijah (13:21), and Joram's brothers and his sickness (21:2-4 and 18f.).
Of the succeeding kings also various undertakings are reported which are not found in the books of Kings. In this way we are informed of Joash's defection from the Lord, and his fall into idolatry after the death of the high priest Jehoiada (2 Chron 24:15-22); how Amaziah increased his military power (25:5-10), and worshipped idols (25:14-16); of Uzziah's victorious wars against the Philistines and Arabs, and his fortress-building, etc. (26:6-15); of Jotham's fortress-building, and his victory over the Ammonites (27:4-6); of the increase of Hezekiah's riches (27-30); of Manasseh's capture and removal to Babylon, and his return out of captivity (11-17). But the history of Hezekiah and Josiah more especially is rendered more complete by special accounts of reforms in worship, and of celebrations of the passover (29:3-31,21, and 2-15); while we have only summary notices of the godless conduct of Ahaz (ch. 28) and Manasseh (3-10), of the campaign of Sennacherib against Jerusalem and Judah, of Hezekiah's sickness and the reception of the Babylonian embassy in Jerusalem (ch. 32, cf. 2 Kings 28:13-20,19); as also of the reigns of the last kings, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. From all this, it is clear that the author of the Chronicle, as Bertheau expresses it, "has turned his attention to those times especially in which Israel's religion had showed itself to be a power dominating the people and their leaders, and bringing them prosperity; and to those men who had endeavoured to give a more enduring form to the arrangements for the service of God, and to restore the true worship of Jahve; and to those events in the history of the worship so intimately bound up with Jerusalem, which had important bearings."
This purpose appears much more clearly when we take into consideration the narratives which are common to the Chronicle and the books of Samuel and Kings, and observe the difference which is perceptible in the mode of conception and representation in those parallel sections. For our present purpose, however, those narratives in which the chronicler supplements and completes the accounts given in the books of Samuel and Kings by more exact and detailed information, or shortens them by the omission of unimportant details, come less into consideration. (Note: Additions are to be found, e.g., in the list of David's heroes, Chr. 12:42-47; in the history of the building and consecration of Solomon's temple; in the enumeration of the candlesticks, tables, and courts,2 Chron 4:6-9; in the notice of the copper platform on which Solomon kneeled at prayer, 6:12-13; and of the fire which fell from heaven upon the burnt-offering, 7:1ff. Also in the histories of the wars they are met with, 1 Chron 11:6,8,23, cf. 2 Sam 5:8-9; 23:21; Chron 18:8,12, cf. 2 Sam 8:8,13, etc. More may be found in my Handbook of Introd. 139, 5. Abridgments by the rejection of unimportant details are very frequent; e.g., omission of the Jebusites' mockery of David's attack on their fortress, 1 Chron 11:5-6, cf. Sam 5:6,8; of the details of the storming of Rabbah,1 Chron 20:1-2, cf. 2 Sam 12:27-29; and of many more, vide my Handbook of Introduction, 139, 8.)
For both additions and abridgments show only that the chronicler has not drawn his information from the canonical books of Samuel and Kings, but from other more circumstantial original documents which he had at his command, and has used these sources independently. Much more important for a knowledge of the plan of the Chronicle are the variations in the parallel places between it and the other narrative; for in them the point of view from which the chronicler regarded, and has described, the events clearly appears. In the number of such passages is to be reckoned the narrative of the transfer of the ark (1 Chron 13 and 15, cf. 2 Sam 6), where the chronicler presents the fact in its religious import as the beginning of the restoration of the worship of Jahve according to the law, which had fallen into decay; while the author of the books of Samuel describes it only in its political import, in its bearing on the Davidic kingship.
Of this character also is the narrative of the raising of Joash to the throne (2 Chron 23, cf. 2 Kings 11), where the share of the Levites in the completion of the work begun by the high priest Jehoiada is prominently brought forward, while in Kings it is not expressly mentioned. The whole account also of the reign of Hezekiah, as well as other passages, belong to this category. Now from these and other descriptions of the part the Levites played in events, and the share they took in assisting the efforts of the pious kings to revivify and maintain the temple worship, the conclusion has been rightly drawn that the chronicler describes with special interest the fostering of the Levitic worship according to the precepts of the law of Moses, and hold it up to his contemporaries for earnest imitation; yet this has been too often done in such a way as to cause this one element in the plans of the Chronicle to be looked upon as its main object, which has led to a very onesided conception of the character of the book.
The chronicler does not desire to bring honour to the Levites and to the temple worship: his object is rather to draw from the history of the kingship in Israel a proof that faithful adherence to the covenant which the Lord had made with Israel brings happiness and blessing; the forsaking of it, on the contrary, ensures ruin and a curse. But Israel could show its faithfulness to the covenant only by walking according to the ordinances of the law given by Moses, and in worshipping Jahve, the God of their fathers, in His holy place in that way which He had established by the ceremonial ordinances. The author of the Chronicle attaches importance to the Levitic worship only because the fidelity of Israel to the covenant manifested itself in the careful maintenance of it.
This point of view appears clearly in the selection and treatment of the material drawn by our historian from older histories and prophetic writings. His history begins with the death of Saul and the anointing of David to be king over the whole of Israel, and confines itself, after the division of the kingdom, to the history of the kingdom of Judah. In the time of the judges especially, the Levitic worship had fallen more and more into decay; and even Samuel had done nothing for it, or perhaps could do nothing, and the ark remained during that whole period at a distance from the tabernacle. Still less was done under Saul for the restoration of the worship in the tabernacle; for "Saul died," as we read in 1 Chron 10:13f., "for his transgression which he had transgressed against the Lord;...and because he inquired not of the Lord, therefore He slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse." After the death of Saul the elders of all Israel came to David with the confession, "Jahve thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel; and thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel" (1 Chron 11:2).
David's first care, after he had as king over all Israel conquered the Jebusite hold on Mount Zion, and made Jerusalem the capital of the kingdom, was to bring the ark from its obscurity into the city of David, and to establish the sacrificial worship according to the law near that sanctuary (1 Chr. 13:15-16). Shortly afterwards he formed the resolution of building for the Lord a permanent house (a temple), that He might dwell among His people, for which he received from the Lord the promise of the establishment of his kingdom for ever, although the execution of his design was denied to him, and was committed to his son (ch. 17). Only after all this has been related do we find narratives of David's wars and his victories over all hostile peoples (ch. 18-20), of the numbering of the people, and the pestilence, which, in consequence of the repentant resignation of David to the will of the Lord, gave occasion to the determination of the place for the erection of the temple (ch. 21).
The second section of the history of the Davidic kingship contains the preparations for the building of the temple, and the laying down of more permanent regulations for the ordering of the worship; and that which David had prepared for, and so earnestly impressed upon his son Solomon at the transfer of the crown, Solomon carried out. Immediately after the throne had been secured to him, he took in hand the building of the temple; and the account of this work fills the greater part of the history of his reign, while the description of his kingly power and splendour and wisdom, and of all the other undertakings which he carried out, is of the shortest. When ten tribes revolted from the house of David after his death, Rehoboam's design of bringing the rebellious people again under his dominion by force of arms was checked by the prophet Shemaiah with the words, "Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren, for this thing is done of me" (2 Chron 11:4).
But in their revolt from the house of David, which Jeroboam sought to perpetuate by the establishment of an idolatrous national worship, Israel of the ten tribes had departed from the covenant communion with Jahve; and on this ground, and on this account, the history of that kingdom is no further noticed by the chronicler. The priests and Levites came out of the whole Israelite dominion to Judah and Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his sons expelled them from the priesthood. After them, from all the tribes of Israel came those who gave their hearts to seek Jahve the God of Israel to Jerusalem to sacrifice to Jahve the God of their fathers (2 Chron 11:13- 16), for "Jerusalem is the city which Jahve has chosen out of all the tribes of Israel to put His name there" (12:13). The priests, Levites, and pious people who went over from Israel made the kingdom of Judah strong, and confirmed Rehoboam's power, for they walked in the ways of David and Solomon (1 Chron 11:17).
But when the kingdom of Rehoboam had been firmly established, he forsook the law of Jahve, and all Israel with him (1 Chron 12:1). Then the Egyptian king Shishak came up against Jerusalem, "because they had transgressed against the Lord" (12:2). The prophet Shemaiah proclaimed the word of the Lord: "Ye have forsaken me, and therefore have I also left you in the hand of Shishak" (12:5). Yet when Rehoboam and the princes of Israel humbled themselves, the anger of the Lord turned from him, that He would not destroy him altogether (12:6,12). King Abijah reproaches Jeroboam in his speech with his defection from Jahve, and concludes with the words, "O children of Israel, fight not ye against the Lord God of your fathers, for ye shall not prosper" (13:12); and when the men of Judah cried unto the Lord in the battle, and the priests blew the trumpets, then did God smite Jeroboam and all Israel (13:15). "Thus the children of Israel were brought under at that time, and the children of Judah prevailed, because they relied upon the Lord God of their fathers" (13:18). King Asa commanded his subjects to seek Jahve the God of their fathers, and to do the law and the commandments (1 Chron 14:3). In the war against the Cushites, he cried unto Jahve his God, "Help us, for we rest on Thee;" and Jahve smote the Cushites before Judah (14:10). After this victory Asa and Judah sacrificed unto the Lord of their spoil, and entered into a covenant to seek Jahve the God of their fathers with all their heart, and with all their soul. And the Lord was found of them, and the Lord gave them rest round about (15:11ff.). But when Asa afterwards, in the war against Baasha of Israel, made an alliance with the Syrian king Benhadad, the prophet Hanani censured this act in the words, "Because thou hast relied on the king of Syria, and hast not relied on Jahve thy God, therefore has the host of the king of Syria escaped out of thy hand.... Herein thou hast done foolishly," etc. (16:7-9). Jehoshaphat became mighty against Israel, and Jahve was with him; for he walked in the ways of his father David, and sought not unto the Baals, but sought the God of his father, and walked in His commandments, and not after the doings of Israel. And Jahve established his kingdom in his hand, and he attained to riches and great splendour (17:1-5).
After this fashion does the chronicler show how God blessed the reigns and prospered all the undertakings of all the kings of Judah who sought the Lord and walked in His commandments; but at the same time also, how every defection from the Lord brought with it misfortune and chastisement. Under Joram of Judah, Edom and Libnah freed themselves from the supremacy of Judah, "because Joram had forsaken Jahve the God of his fathers" (1 Chron 21:10). Because Joram had walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and had seduced the inhabitants of Jerusalem to whoredom (i.e., idolatry), and had slain his brothers, God punished him in the invasion of Judah by the Philistines and Arabs, who stormed Jerusalem, took away with them all the furniture of the royal palace, and took captive his sons and wives, while He smote him besides with incurable disease (21:11ff., 16-18).
Because of the visit which Ahaziah made to Joram of Israel, when he lay sick of his wound at Jezreel, the judgment was (1 Chron 22:7) pronounced: "The destruction of Ahaziah was of God by his coming to Joram." When Amaziah, after his victory over the Edomites, brought back the gods of Seir and set them up for himself as gods, before whom he worshipped, the anger of Jahve was kindled against him. In spite of the warning of the prophets, he sought a quarrel with King Joash of Israel, who likewise advised him to abandon his design. "But Amaziah would not hear; for it was of God, that He might deliver them over, because they had sought the gods of Edom" (25:20). With this compare v. 27: "After the time that Amaziah turned away from the following Jahve, they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem." Of Uzziah it is said (26:5), so long as he sought the Lord, God made him to prosper, so that he conquered his enemies and became very mighty. But when he was strong his heart was lifted up, so that he transgressed against Jahve his God, by forcing his way into the temple to offer incense; and for this he was smitten with leprosy.
Of Jotham it is said, in 27:6, "He became mighty, because he established his ways before Jahve his God."
From these and similar passages, which might easily be multiplied, we clearly see that the chronicler had in view not only the Levitic worship, but also and mainly the attitude of the people and their princes to the Lord and to His law; and that it is from this point of view that he has regarded and written the history of his people before the exile. But it is also not less clear, from the quotations we have made, in so far as they contain practical remarks of the historian, that it was his purpose to hold up to his contemporaries as a mirror the history of the past, in which they might see the consequences of their own conduct towards the God of their fathers.
He does not wish, as the author of the books of Kings does, to narrate the events and facts objectively, according to the course of history; but he connects the facts and events with the conduct of the kings and people towards the Lord, and strives to put the historical facts in such a light as to teach that God rewards fidelity to His covenant with happiness and blessing, and avenges faithless defection from it with punitive judgments.
Owing to this peculiarity, the historical narrative acquires a hortative character, which gives occasion for the employment of a highly rhetorical style. The hortative-rhetorical character impressed upon his narrative shows itself not only in many of the speeches of the actors in the history which are interwoven with it, but also in many of the historical parts. For example, the account given in 2 Chron 21:16 of the punitive judgments which broke in upon Joram for his wickedness is rhetorically arranged, so that the judgments correspond to the threatenings contained in the letter of Elijah, vv. 12-15. But this may be much more plainly seen in the description of the impious conduct of King Ahaz, and of the punishments which were inflicted upon him and the kingdom of Judah (ch. 28); as also in the descriptions of the crime of Manasseh (2 Chron 33:3-13; cf. especially vv. 7 and 8), and of the reign of Zedekiah, and the ruin of the kingdom of Judah (2 Chron 36:12-21).
Now the greater part of the differences between the chronicler's account and the parallel narrative in the books of Samuel and Kings, together with the omission of unimportant circumstances, and the careful manner in which the descriptions of the arrangements for worship and the celebration of feasts are wrought out, can be accounted for by this hortatory tendency so manifest in his writings, and by his subjective, reflective manner of regarding history. For all these peculiarities clearly have it for their object to raise in the souls of the readers pleasure and delight in the splendid worship of the Lord, and to confirm their hearts in fidelity to the Lord and to His law.
With this plan and object, the first part of our history (1 Chron 1-9), which contains genealogies, with geographical sketches and isolated historical remarks, is in perfect harmony. The genealogies are intended to exhibit, on the one hand, the connection of the people of Israel with the whole human race; on the other, the descent and genealogical ramifications of the tribes and families of Israel, with the extent to which they had spread themselves abroad in the land received as a heritage from the Lord.
In both of these respects they are the necessary foundation for the following history of the chosen people, which the author designed to trace from the time of the foundation of the promised kingdom till the people were driven away into exile because of their revolt from their God. And it is not to be considered as a result of the custom prevalent among the later Arabian historians, of beginning their histories and chronicles ab ovo with Adam, that our author goes back in this introduction to Adam and the beginnings of the human race; for not only is this custom far too modern to allow of any inference being drawn from it with reference to the Chronicle, but it has itself originated, beyond a doubt, in an imitation of our history.
The reason for going back to the beginnings of the human race is to be sought in the importance for the history of the world of the people of Israel, whose progenitor Abraham had been chosen and separated from all the peoples of the earth by God, that his posterity might become a blessing to all the families of the earth. But in order to see more perfectly the plan and object of the historian in his selection and treatment of the historical material at his command, we must still keep in view the age in which he lived, and for which he wrote. In respect to this, so much in general is admitted, viz., that the Chronicle was composed after the Babylonian exile. With their release from exile, and their return into the land of their fathers, Israel did not receive again its former political importance.
That part of the nation which had returned remained under Persian supremacy, and was ruled by Persian governors; and the descendants of the royal race of David remained subject to this governor, or at least to the kings of Persia. They were only allowed to restore the temple, and to arrange the divine service according to the precepts of the Mosaic law; and in this they were favoured by Cyrus and his successors. In such circumstances, the efforts and struggles of the returned Jews must have been mainly directed to the reestablishment and permanent ordering of the worship, in order to maintain communion with the Lord their God, and by that means to prove their fidelity to the God of their fathers, so that the Lord might fulfil His covenant promises to them, and complete the restoration of Judah and Jerusalem. By this fact, therefore, may we account for the setting forth in our history of the religious and ecclesiastical side of the life of the Israelitish community in such relief, and for the author's supposed "fondness" for the Levitic worship. If the author of the Chronicle wished to strengthen his contemporaries in their fidelity to Jahve, and to encourage them to fulfil their covenant duties by a description of the earlier history of the covenant people, he could not hope to accomplish his purpose more effectively than by so presenting the history as to bring accurately before them the ordinances and arrangements of the worship, the blessings of fidelity to the covenant, and the fatal fruits of defection from the Lord.
The chronicler's supposed predilection for genealogical lists arose also from the circumstances of his time. From Ezra 2:60ff. we learn that some of the sons of priests who returned with Zerubbabel sought their family registers, but could not find them, and were consequently removed from the priesthood; besides this, the inheritance of the land was bound up with the families of Israel. On this account the family registers had, for those who had returned from the exile, an increased importance, as the means of again obtaining possession of the heritage of their fathers; and perhaps it was the value thus given to the genealogical lists which induced the author of the Chronicle to include in his book all the old registers of this sort which had been received from antiquity. 2. Age and Author of the Chronicles.
The Chronicle cannot have been composed before the time of Ezra, for it closes with the intelligence that Cyrus, by an edict in the first year of his reign, allowed the Jews to return to their country (2 Chron 36:22f.), and it brings down the genealogical tree of Zerubbabel to his grandchildren (1 Chron 3:19-21). The opinion brought into acceptance by de Wette and Ewald, that the genealogy (1 Chron 3:19-24) enumerates six or seven other generations after Zerubbabel, and so reaches down to the times of Alexander the Great or yet later, is founded on the undemonstrable assumption that the twenty-one names which in this passage (v. 21b) follow rpyh bny are the names of direct descendants of Zerubbabel. But no exegetical justification can be found for this assumption; since the list of names, "the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah," etc. (vv. 21b-24), is connected neither in form nor in subject-matter with the grandsons of Zerubbabel, who have been already enumerated, but forms a genealogical fragment, the connection of which with Zerubbabel's grandchildren is merely asserted, but can neither be proved nor even rendered probable. (Vide the commentary on these verses.) Other grounds for the acceptance of so late a date for the composition of the Chronicle are entirely wanting; for the orthography and language of the book point only in general to the post-exilic age, and the mention of the Daric, a Persian coin, in 1 Chron 29:7, does not bring us further down than the period of the Persian rule over Judaea. On the other hand, the use of the name biyraah (1 Chron 29:1,19) for the temple can scarcely be reconciled with the composition of the book in the Macedonian or even the Seleucidian age, since an author who lived after Nehemiah, when Jerusalem, like other Persian cities, had received in the fortress built by him (Neh 2:8; 7:2), and afterwards called ba'ris and Arx Antonia, its own biyraah , would scarcely have given this name to the temple.
In reference to the question of the authorship of our book, the matter which most demands consideration is the identity of the end of the Chronicle with the beginning of the book of Ezra. The Chronicle closes with the edict of Cyrus which summons the Jews to return to Jerusalem to build the temple; the book of Ezra begins with this same edict, but gives it more completely than the Chronicle, which stops somewhat abruptly with the word w|yaa`al , "and let him go up," although in this wy`l everything is contained that we find in the remaining part of the edict communicated in the book of Ezra. From this relation of the Chronicle to the book of Ezra, many Rabbins, Fathers of the church, and older exegetes, have drawn the conclusion that Ezra is also the author of the Chronicle.
But of course it is not a very strong proof, since it can be accounted for on the supposition that the author of the book of Ezra has taken over the conclusion of the Chronicle into his work, and set it at the commencement so as to attach his book to the Chronicle as a continuation.
In support of this supposition, moreover, the further fact may be adduced, that it was just as important for the Chronicle to communicate the terms of Cyrus' edict as it was for the book of Ezra. It was a fitting conclusion of the former, to show that the destruction of Jerusalem and the leading away of the inhabitants of Judah to Babylon, was not the final destiny of Judah and Jerusalem, but that, after the dark night of exile, the day of the restoration of the people of God had dawned under Cyrus; and for the latter it was an indispensable foundation and point of departure for the history of the new immigration of the exiles into Jerusalem and Judah. Yet it still remains more probable that one author produced both writings, yet not as a single book, which has been divided at some later time by another hand. For no reason can be perceived for any such later division, especially such a division as would make it necessary to repeat the edict of Cyrus. (Note: What Bertheau (p. xxi.) says in this connection (following Ewald, Gesch. des V. Isr. i. 8. S. 264, der 2 Aufl.), viz., that "perhaps at first only that part of the great historical work which contains the history of the new community itself, to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the history of these its two heroes, was added to the books of the Old Testament, because it seemed unnecessary to add our present Chronicle, on account of its agreement in great part with the contents of the books of Samuel and Kings," is a supposition which merely evades giving a reason for the division of the work into two, by holding the division to have been made before the book came into the canon. But unless the division had been made before, no one would ever have thought of considering the first half of this book, i.e., our present Chronicle, unworthy of a place in the canon, since it contains, in great part, new information not found in the books of Samuel and Kings, and supplements in a variety of ways even the narratives which are contained in these books. And even supposing that the Chronicle was received into the canon as a supplement, after the books of Ezra and Nehemiah had already received a definite place in it, the verses 2 Chr. 37:22f. could scarcely have been added to the Chronicle from the book of Ezra, to call attention to the fact that the Chronicle had received an unsuitable place in the canon, as it ought to have stood before the book of Ezra.)
The introduction of this edict with the words, "And it came to pass in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished," connects it so closely with the end of the account of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the carrying away into Babylon, contained in the words, "And they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfil the word of the Lord spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah,... to fulfil the seventy years" (v. 20f.), that it cannot be separated from what precedes. Rather it is clear, that the author who wrote verses 20 and 21, representing the seventy years' exile as the fulfilment of the prophecy of Jeremiah, must be the same who mentions the edict of Cyrus, and sets it forth in its connection with the utterances of the same prophet. This connecting of the edict with the prophecy gives us an irrefragable proof that the verses which contain the edict form an integral part of the Chronicle. But, at the same time, the way in which the edict is broken off in the Chronicle with w|yaa`al , makes it likely that the author of the Chronicle did not give the contents of the edict in their entirety, only because he intended to treat further of the edict, and the fulfilment of it by the return of the Jews from Babylon, in a second work. A later editor would certainly have given the entire edict in both writings (the Chronicle and the book of Ezra), and would, moreover, hardly have altered b|piy (Chron.) into mipiy (Ezra), and `imow 'elohaayw y|haaowh into `imow 'elohaayw y|hiy .
The remaining grounds which are usually urged for the original unity of the two writings, prove nothing more than the possibility or probability that both originated with one author; certainly they do not prove that they originally formed one work. The long list of phenomena in Bertheau's Commentary, pp. xvi.-xx., by which a certainty is supposed to be arrived at that the Chronicle and Ezra originally was one great historical work, compiled from various sources, greatly requires the help of critical bias. 1. "The predilection of the author for genealogical lists, for detailed descriptions of great feasts, which occurred at the most various times, for exact representations of the arrangement of the public worship, and the business of the Levites and priests, which their classifications and ranks," cannot be proved to exist in the book of Ezra.
That book contains only one very much abridged genealogy, that of Ezra (Ezra 7:1-5); only two lists-those, namely, of the families who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Ezra (ch. 2 and 8); only one account of the celebration of a feast, the by no means detailed description of the consecration of the temple (1 Chron 6:16); short remarks on the building of the altar, the celebration of the feast of tabernacles, and the laying of the foundation-stone of the temple, in ch. 3; and it contains nothing whatever as to the divisions and ranks of the priests and Levites.
That in these lists and descriptions some expressions should recur, is to be expected from the nature of the case. Yet all that is common to both books is the word hit|yachees , the use of kamish|paaT in the signification, "according to the Mosaic law" (1 Chron 23:31; 2 Chron 35:13; Ezra 3:4, and Neh 8:18), and the liturgical formulae layhaaowh howduw , which occurs also in Isa 12:4 and Ps 33:2, and uwl|haleel l|howdowt with the addition, "Jahve is God, and His mercy endureth for ever" (1 Chron 16:34,41; 2 Chron 7:6; Ezra 3:11).
The other expressions enumerated by Bertheau are met with also in other writings: b|sheemowt niq|buw in Num 1:17; beeyt-'aabowt raa'sheey and 'aabowt raa'sheey , Ex 6:14ff.; and the formula (yhwh b|towrat ) batowraah kakaatuwb or l|kaal-hakaatuwb (1 Chron 16:40; 2 Chron 35:12,26; Ezra 3:2,4) is just as common in other writings: cf. Josh 1:8; 8:31,34; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 22:13; 23:21.
Bertheau further remarks: "In those sections in which the regulation of the public worship, the duties, classification, and offices of the priests and Levites are spoken of, the author seizes every opportunity to tell of the musicians and doorkeepers, their duties at the celebration of the great festivals, and their classification. He speaks of the musicians, 1 Chron 6:16ff., 9:14-16,33; 15:16-22,27f., 16:4-42; 23:5,25; 2 Chron 5:12f., Chron 7:6; 8:14f., 20:19, 21; 23:13,18; 29:25-28,30; 30:21f., 31:2,11-18; 34:12; 35:15; Ezra 3:10f.; Neh 11:17; 12:8,24,27-29,45-47; 13:5. The doorkeepers are mentioned nearly as often, and not seldom in company with the singers: 1 Chron 9:17-29; 15:18,23-24; 16:38; 23:5; 26:1,12-19; Chron 8:14; 23:4,19; 31:14; 34:13; 35:15; Ezra 2:42,70; 7:7; 10:24; Neh 7:1,45; 10:29; 11:19; 12:25,45,47; 13:5.
Now if these passages be compared, not only are the same expressions met with (e.g., m|tsil|tayim only in Chron., Ezra, and Neh.; ham|shoreer and ham|shor|riym likewise only in these books, but here very frequently, some twenty-eight times), and also very often in different places the same names (cf. 1 Chron 9:17 with Neh 12:25); but everywhere also we can easily trace the same view as to the importance of the musicians and doorkeepers for the public worship, and see that all information respecting them rests upon a very well-defined view of their duties and their position."
But does it follow from this "well-defined view" of the business of the musicians and doorkeepers, that the Chronicle, Ezra, and Nehemiah form a single book? Is this view an idea peculiar to the author of this book? In all the historical books of the Old Testament, from Exodus and Leviticus to Nehemiah, we find the idea that the laying of the sacrifice upon the altar is the business of the priest; but does it follow from that, that all those books were written by one man? But besides this, the representation given by Bertheau is very one-sided. The fact is, that in the Chronicle, and in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, mention is made of the priests just as often as of the Levitical musicians, and oftener than the doorkeepers are spoken of, as will be seen from the proofs brought forward in the following remarks; nor can any trace be discovered of a "fondness" on the part of the chronicler for the musicians and porters. They are mentioned only when the subject demanded that they should be mentioned. 2. As to the language.-Bertheau himself admits, after the enumeration of a long list of linguistic peculiarities of the Chronicle and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, that all these phenomena are to be met with separately in other books of the Old Testament, especially the later ones; only their frequent use can be set down as the linguistic peculiarity of one author.
But does the mere numbering of the places where a word or a grammatical construction occurs in this or that book really serve as a valid proof for the unity of the authorship? When, for example, the form bizaah , Chr. 14:13; 28:14, Ezra 9:7, Neh. 3:36, occurs elsewhere only in Esther and Daniel, or qibeel in 1 Chron 12:18; 21:11; 2 Chron 29:16,22, and Ezra 8:30, is elsewhere found only in Proverbs once, in Job once, and thrice in Esther, does it follow that the Chronicle and the book of Ezra are the work of one author?
The greater number of the linguistic phenomena enumerated by Bertheau, such as the use of haa'elohiym for yhwh ; the frequent use of l|, partly before the infinitive to express shall or must, partly for subordinating or introducing a word; the multiplication of prepositionse. g., in l|'eeyn `ad , 2 Chron 36:16; lim|'od `ad, 2 Chron 16:14; l|ma`|laah `ad , 2 Chron 16:12; 17:12; 36:8-are characteristics not arising from a peculiar use of language by our chronicler, but belonging to the later or post-exilic Hebrew in general.
The only words and phrases which are characteristic of and common to the Chronicle and the book of Ezra are: k|powr (bowl), 1 Chron 28:17; Ezra 1:10; 8:27; the infinitive Hophal huwcad, used of the foundation of the temple,2 Chron 3:3; Ezra 3:11; p|lugaah , of the divisions of the Levites,2 Chron 35:5 and Ezra 6:18; hit|nadeeb , of offerings, 1 Chron 29:5-6,9,14,17; Ezra 1:6; 2:68; 3:5; l|meeraachowq `ad (with three prepositions), 2 Chron 26:15; Ezra 3:13; and lid|rosh l|baabow heekiyn , 2 Chron 12:14; 19:3; 30:19, and Ezra 7:10. These few words and constructions would per se not prove much; but in connection with the fact that neither in the language nor in the ideas are any considerable differences or variations to be observed, they may serve to strengthen the probability, arising from the relation of the end of the Chronicle to the beginning of the book of Ezra, that both writings were composed by the priest and scribe Ezra. (Note: The opinion first propounded by Ewald, and adopted by Bertheau, Dillmann (art. "Chronik" in Herzog's Realencykl.), and others, that "the author belonged to the guild of musicians settled at the temple in Jerusalem" (Gesch. des. V. Isr. i. p. 235), has no tenable ground for its support, and rests merely on the erroneous assumption that the author has not the same sympathy with the priests as he shows in speaking of the Levites, more especially of the signers and doorkeepers (Berth.). If this assertion were true, the author might have been just as well a Levitical doorkeeper as a musician. But it is quite erroneous, as may be seen on a comparison of the passage adduced supra, p. 386, from Bertheau's commentary. In all the passages in which the musicians and doorkeepers are mentioned the priests are also spoken of, and in such a way that to both priests and Levites that is ascribed which belonged to their respective offices: to the priests, the sacrificial service and the blowing of the trumpets; to the Levites, the external business of the temple, and the execution of the instrumental music and psalm-singing introduced by David. From this it is clear that there is not reason why the priests and scribe Ezra might not have composed the Chronicle. The passages supporting the assertion that where musicians and doorkeepers are spoken of the priests are also mentioned, are: 1 Chron 6:34ff., 9:10-13; 15:24; 16:6,39f., 23:2,13,28,32; 24:1-19; 2 Chron 5:7,11-14; 7:6; 8:14f., Chr 13:9-12; 17:8; 19:8,11; 20:28; 23:4,6,18; 26:17,20; 29:4,16,21- 24,34; 30:3,15,21,25,27; 31:2,17,19; 34:30; 35:2,8,10,14,18; Ezra 1:5; 2:61,70; 3:2,8,10-12; 6:16,18,20; 7:7,24; 8:15,24-30,33; Neh. 2:16; 3:1; 7:73; 8:13; 10:1-9,29,35,39f., 1 Chron 11:3,10ff., 12:1ff., 30, 35, 41, 44, 47, 13:30.) 3. The Sources of the Chronicles.
The genealogical list in ch. 1, which gives us the origin of the human race and of the nations, and that which contains the names of the sons of Jacob (1 Chron 2:1 and 2), are to be found in and have been without doubt extracted from Genesis, to be placed together here. For it is scarcely probable that genealogical lists belonging to primeval time and the early days of Israel should have been preserved till the post-exilic period. But all the genealogical registers which follow, together with the geographical and historical remarks interwoven with them (1 Chron 2:3-8:40), have not been derived from the older historical books of the Old Testament: for they contain for the most part merely the names of the originators of those genealogical lines, of the grandsons and some of the great-grandsons of Jacob, and of the ancestors, brothers, and sons of David; but nowhere do they contain the whole lines.
Moreover, in the parallel places the names often differ greatly, so that all the variations cannot be ascribed to errors of transcription. Compare the comparative table of these parallel places in my apolog. Versuch über die Chron. S. 159ff., and in the Handbook of Introduction, 139, 1. All these catalogues, together with that of the cities of the Levites (1 Chron 6:39- 66), have been derived from other, extra-biblical sources. But as Bertheau, S. xxxi., rightly remarks: "We cannot hold the lists to be the result of historical investigation on the part of the author of the Chronicle, in the sense of his having culled the individual names carefully either out of historical works or from traditions of the families, and then brought them into order: for in reference to Gad (1 Chron 5:12) we are referred to a genealogical register prepared in the time of Jotham king of Judah and Jeroboam king of Israel; while as to Issachar (1 Chron 7:2) the reference is to the numbering of the people which took place in the time of David; and it is incidentally (?) stated (1 Chron 9:1) that registers had been prepared of all Israelites (i.e., the northern tribes)."
Besides this, in 1 Chron 23:3,27, and 26:31, numberings of the Levites, and in 1 Chron 27:24 the numbering of the people undertaken by Joab at David's command, are mentioned. With regard to the latter, however, it is expressly stated that its results were not incorporated in the hayaamiym dib|reey , i.e., in the book of the chronicles of King David, while it is said that the results of the genealogical registration of the northern tribes of Israel were written in the book of the kings of Israel.
According to this, then, it might be thought that the author had taken his genealogical lists from the great historical work made use of by him, and often cited, in the history of the kings of Judah-"the national annals of Israel and Judah." But this can be accepted only with regard to the short lists of the tribes of the northern kingdom in ch. 5 and 7, which contain nothing further than the names of families and fathers'-houses, with a statement of the number of males in these fathers'-houses.
It is possible that these names and numbers were contained in the national annals; but it is not likely that these registers, which are of a purely genealogical nature, giving the descent of families or famous men in longer or shorter lines of ancestors, were received into the national annals (Reichsannalen), and it does not at all appear from the references to the annals that this was the case. These genealogical lists were most probably in the possession of the heads of the tribes and families and households, from whom the author of the Chronicle would appear to have collected all he could find, and preserved them from destruction by incorporating them in his work.
In the historical part (1 Chr. 10:-2 Chr. 36), at the death of almost every king, the author refers to writings in which the events and acts of his reign are described. Only in the case of Joram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, and the later kings Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, are such references omitted. The books which are thus named are: (1) For David's reign, Dibre of Samuel the seer, of the prophet Nathan, and of Gad the seer (1 Chron 29:29); (2) as to Solomon, the Dibre of the prophet Nathan, the prophecy (n|buw'at) of Abijah the Shilonite, and the visions (chazowt) of the seer Iddo against Jeroboam the son of Nebat (2 Chron 9:29); (3) for Rehoboam, Dibre of the prophet Shemaiah and the seer Iddo (2 Chron 13:22); (5) for Asa, the book of the kings of Judah and Israel (16:11); (6) as to Jehoshaphat, Dibre of Jehu the son of Hanani, which had been incorporated with the book of the kings of Israel (20:34); (7) for the reign of Joash, Midrash-Sepher of the kings (24:27); (8) for the reign of Amaziah, the book of the kings of Judah and Israel (25:26); (9) in reference to Uzziah, a writing (kaatab ) of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 26:22); (10) as to Jotham, the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (27:7); (11) for the reign of Ahaz, the book of the kings of Judah and Israel (28:26); (12) for Hezekiah, the vision (chazown ) of the prophet Isaiah, in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel (32:32); (13) as to Manasseh, Dibre of the kings of Israel, and Dibre of Hozai (33:18 and 19); (14) for the reign of Josiah, the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (35:27); and (15) for Jehoiakim, the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (36:8).
From this summary, it appears that two classes of writings, of historical and prophetic contents respectively, are quoted. The book of the kings of Judah and Israel (No. 5, 8, 11), the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (10, 14, 15), the histories (dib|reey ) of the kings of Israel (13), and the Midrash-book of kings (7), are all historical. The first three titles are, as is now generally admitted, only variations in the designation of one and the same work, whose complete title, "Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel" (or Israel and Judah), is here and there altered into "Book of the Events (or History) of the Kings of Israel," i.e., of the whole Israelitish people. This work contained the history of the kings of both kingdoms, and must have been essentially the same as to contents with the two annalistic writings cited in the canonical books of Kings: the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, and the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah. This conclusion is forced upon us by the fact that the extracts from them contained in our canonical books of Kings, coincide with the extracts from the books of the kings of Israel and Judah contained in our Chronicle where they narrate the same events, either verbally, or at least in so far that the identity of the sources from which they have been derived cannot but be recognised.
The only difference is, that the author of the Chronicle had the two writings which the author of the book of Kings quotes as two separate works, before him as one work, narrating the history of both kingdoms in a single composition. For he cites the book of the Kings of Israel even for the history of those kings of Judah who, like Jotham and Hezekiah, had nothing to do with the kingdom of Israel (i.e., the ten tribes), and even after the kingdom of the ten tribes had been already destroyed, for the reigns of Manasseh, Josiah, and Jehoiakim. But we are entirely without any means of answering with certainty the question, in how far the merging of the annals of the two kingdoms into one book of the kings of Israel was accompanied by remoulding and revision. The reasons which Bertheau, in his commentary on Chronicles, p. 41ff., brings forward, after the example of Thenius and Ewald, for thinking that it underwent so thorough a revision as to become a different book, are without force.
The difference in the title is not sufficient, since it is quite plain, from the different names under which the chronicler quotes the work which is used by him, that he did not give much attention to literal accuracy. The character of the parallel places in our books of Kings and the Chronicle, as Bertheau himself admits, forms no decisive criterion for an accurate determination of the relation of the chronicler to his original documents, which is now in question, since neither the author of the books of Samuel and Kings nor the author of the Chronicle intended to copy with verbal exactness: they all, on the contrary, treated the historical material which they had before them with a certain freedom, and wrought it up in their own writings in accordance with their various aims.
It is questionable if the work quoted for the reign of Joash, ham|laakiym ceeper mid|rash (No. 7), is identical with the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, or whether it be not a commentary on it, or perhaps a revision of that book, or of a section of the history of the kings for purposes of edification. The narrative in the Chronicle of the chief events in the reign of Joash, his accession, with the fall of Athaliah, and the repairing of the temple (2 Chron 23 and 24), agrees with the account of these events in 2 Kings 11 and 12 where the annals of the kings of Judah are quoted, to such an extent, that both the authors seem to have derived their accounts from the same source, each making extracts according to his peculiar point of view. But the Chronicle recounts, besides this, the fall of Joash into idolatry, the censure of this defection by the prophet Zechariah, and the defeat of the numerous army of the Jews by a small Syrian host (1 Chron 24:15-25); from which, in Bertheau's opinion, we may come, without much hesitation, to the conclusion that the connection of these events had been already very clearly brought forward in a Midrash of that book of Israel and Judah which is quoted elsewhere.
This is certainly possible, but it cannot be shown to be more than a possibility; for the further remark of Bertheau, that in the references which occur elsewhere it is not so exactly stated as in 2 Chron 24:27 what the contents of the book referred to are, is shown to be erroneous by the citation in 1 Chr 33:18 and 19. It cannot, moreover, be denied that the title ceeper mid|rash instead of the simple ceeper is surprising, even if, with Ewald, we take mid|raash in the sense of "composition" or "writing," and translate it "writing-book" (Schriftbuch), which gives ground for supposing that an expository writing is here meant.
Even taking the title in this sense, it does not follow with any certainty that the Midrash extended over the whole history of the kings, and still less is it proved that this expository writing may have been used by the chronicler here and there in places where it is not quoted.
So much, however, is certain, that we must not, with Jahn, Movers, Staehelin, and others, hold these annals of the kings of Israel and Judah, which are quoted in the canonical books of Kings and the Chronicle, to be the official records of the acts and undertakings of the kings prepared by the maz|kiyriym. (Note: Against this idea Bähr also has very justly declared (die Bücher der Könige, in J. P. Lange's theol. homilet. Bibelwerke, S. x.f.), and among other things has rightly remarked, that in the separated kingdom of Israel there is no trace whatever of court or national historians. But he goes much too far when he denies the existence of national annals in general, even in the kingdom of Judah, and under David and Solomon. For even granting that the maz|kiyr derives his name from this, "that his duty was, as mnee'moon , to bring to the recollection of the king all the state affairs which were to be cared for, and give advice in reference to them;" yet this function is so intimately connected wit the recording and preserving of the national documents of the kingdom and of all royal ordinances, that from it the composition of official annals of the kingdom follows almost as a matter of course. The existence of such national annals, or official year-books of the kingdom, is placed by 1 Chron 9:1 and 27:24 beyond all doubt. According to 9:1, a genealogical record of the whole of Israel was prepared and inserted in the book of the kings of Israel; and according to 27:24, the result of the numbering of the people, carried out by Joab under David, was not inserted in the book of the "Chronicles of King David." Bähr's objections to the supposition of the existence of national annals, rest upon the erroneous presupposition that all judgments concerning the kings and their religious conduct which we find in our canonical histories, would have also been contained in the annals of the kingdom, and that thus the authors of our books of Kings and Chronicles would have been mere copyists giving us some excerpts from the original documents.)
They are rather annalistic national histories composed by prophets, partly from the archives of the kingdom and other public documents, partly from prophetic monographs containing prophecy and history, either composed and continued by various prophets in succession during the existence of both kingdoms, or brought together in a connected form shortly before the ruin of the kingdom out of the then existing contemporary historical documents and prophetic records. Two circumstances are strongly in favour of the latter supposition. On the one hand, the references to these annals in both kingdoms do not extend to the last kings, but end in the kingdom of Israel with Pekah (2 Kings 15:31), in the kingdom of Judah with Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:5 and 2 Chron 36:8). On the other hand, the formula "until this day" occurs in reference to various events; and since it for the most part refers not to the time of the exile, but to times when the kingdom still existed (cf. 1 Kings 8:8 with 2 Chron 5:9; 1 Kings 9:13,21, with 2 Chron 8:8; 1 Kings 12:19 with 2 Chron 10:19; 2 Kings 8:22 with Chron 21:10; 2 Kings 2:22; 10:27; 14:7, and 16:6), it cannot be from the hand of the authors of our canonical books of Kings and Chronicles, but must have come down to us from the original documents, and is in them possible only if they were written at some shorter or longer period after the events. When Bähr, in the place already quoted, says, on the contrary, that the time shortly before the fall of the kingdom, the time of complete uprooting, would appear to be the time least of all suited for the collection and editing of national year-books, this arises from his not having fully weighed the fact, that at that very time prophets like Jeremiah lived and worked, and, as is clear from the prophecies of Jeremiah, gave much time to the accurate study of the older holy writings.
The book composed by the prophet Isaiah concerning the reign of King Uzziah (9) was a historical work; as was also probably the Midrash of the prophet Iddo (4). But, on the other hand, we cannot believe, as do Ewald, Bertheau, Bähr, and others, that the other prophetical writings enumerated under 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, and 13, were merely parts of the books of the kings of Israel and Judah; for the grounds which are brought forward in support of this view do not appear to us to be tenable, or rather, tend to show that those writings were independent books of prophecy, to which some historical information was appended. 1. The circumstance that it is said of two of those writings, the Dibre of Jehu and the chaazown of Isaiah (6 and 12), that they were incorporated or received into the books of the Kings, does not justify the conclusion "that, since two of the above-named writings are expressly said to be parts of the larger historical work, probably by the others also only parts of this work are meant" (Ew., Berth. S. 34).
For in the citations, those writings are not called parts of the book of Kings, but are only said to have been received into it as component parts; and from that it by no means follows that the others, whose reception is not mentioned, were parts of that work. The admission of one writing into another book can only then be spoken of when the book is different from the writing which is received into it. 2. Since some of the writings are denominated dib|reey of a prophet, from the double meaning of the word d|baariym , verba and res, this title might be taken in the sense of "events of the prophets," to denote historical writings. But it is much more natural to think, after the analogy of the superscriptions in Amos 1:1; Jer 1:1, of books of prophecies like the books of Amos and Jeremiah, which contained prophecies and prophetic speeches along with historical information, just as the sections Amos 7:10-17, Jer. ch. 40-45 do, and which differed from our canonical books of prophecies, in which the historical relations are mentioned only in exceptional cases, only by containing more detailed and minute accounts of the historical events which gave occasion to the prophetic utterances.
On account of this fulness of historical detail, such prophetic writings, without being properly histories, would yet be for many periods of the history of the kings very abundant sources of history. The abovementioned difference between our canonical books of prophecy and the books now under discussion is very closely connected with the historical development of a theocracy, which showed itself in general in this, that the action of the older prophets was specially directed to the present, and to vivâ voce speaking, while that of those of a later time was more turned towards the future, and the consummation of the kingdom of God by the Messiah (cf. Küper, das Prophetenthum des A. Bundes, 1870, S. 93ff.).
This signification of the word dib|reey is, in the present case, placed beyond all doubt by the fact that the writings of other prophets which are mentioned along with these are called n|buw'aah , chaazowt, and chaazown -words which never denote historical writings, but always only prophecies and visions of the prophets.
In accordance with this, the chaazown of Isaiah (12) is clearly distinguished from the writings of the same prophet concerning Uzziah, for which kaatab is used; while in the reign of Manasseh, the speeches of Hozai are named along with the events, i.e., the history of the kings of Israel (2 Chron 33:18-19), and a more exact account of what was related about Manasseh in each of these two books is given. From this we learn that the historical book of Kings contained the words which prophets had spoken against Manasseh; while in the writing of the prophet Hozai, of whom we know nothing further, information as to the places where his idolatry was practised, and the images which were the objects of it, was to be found. After all these facts, which speak decidedly against the identification of the prophetic writings cited in the book of Kings with that book itself, the enigmatic l|hit|yachees , after the formula of quotation, "They are written in the words (speeches) of the prophet Shemaiah and of the seer Iddo" (2 Chron 12:15), can naturally not be looked upon as a proof that here prophetic writings are denominated parts of a larger historical work. 3.
Nor can we consider it, with Bertheau, decisive, "that for the whole history of David (w|haa'acharoniym haari'shoniym hamelek| daawiyd dib|reey ), Solomon, Rehoboam, and Jehoshaphat, prophetic writings are referred to; while for the whole history of Asa, Amaziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Josiah, the references are to the book of the kings of Israel and Judah." From this fact no further conclusion can be drawn than that, in reference to the reigns of some kings the prophetic writings, and in reference to those of others the history of the kingdom, contained all that was important, and that the history of the kingdom contained also information as to the work of the prophets in the kingdom, while the prophetic writings contained likewise information as to the undertakings of the kings. The latter might contain more detailed accounts in reference to some kings, the former in reference to others; and this very circumstance, or some other reason which cannot now be ascertained by us, may have caused the writer of the Chronicle to refer to the former in reference to one king, and to the latter in reference to another.
Finally, 4. Bähr remarks, S. viii.f.: "Quite a number of sections of our books (of Kings) are found in the Chronicle, where the words are identical, and yet the reference there is to the writings of single definite persons, and not to the three original documents from which the Kings is compiled.
Thus, in the first place, in the history of Solomon, in which the sections Chron 6:1-40 and 1 Kings 8:12-50; 2 Chron 7:7-22 and 1 Kings 8:64-9:9; Chron 8:2-10:17 and 1 Kings 9:17-23:26; 2 Chr. 9:1-28 and 1 Kings 10:1-28, etc., are identical, the Chronicle refers not to the book of the history of Solomon (as 1 Kings 11:41), but to the dib|reey of the prophet Nathan, etc. (2 Chron 9:29); consequently the book of the history of Solomon must either have been compiled from those three prophetic writings, or at least have contained considerable portions of them.
The case is identical with the second of the original documents, the book of the history of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29 and elsewhere). The narrative as to Rehoboam is identical in 2 Chron 10 and 1 Kings 12:1-19, as also in 2 Chron 1:1-4 and 1 Kings 12:20-24; further, in 2 Chron 12:13f. as compared with 1 Kings 14:21f.; but the history of the kings of Judah is not mentioned as an authority, as is the case in 1 Kings 14:29, but the dib|reey of the prophet Shemaiah and the seer Iddo (2 Chron 12:15). In the history of King Abijah we are referred, in the very short account, 1 Kings 15:1-8, for further information to the book of the history of the kings of Judah; while the Chronicle, on the contrary, which gives further information, quotes from the mid|raash of the prophet Iddo (2 Chron 13:22).
The case is similar in the history of the kings Uzziah and Manasseh: our author refers in reference to both to the book of the kings of Judah (2 Kings 15:6; 20:17); the chronicler quotes, for the first the kaatab of the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz (2 Chron 26:22), for the latter chowzay dib|reey (2 Chron 33:19). By all these quotations it is satisfactorily shown that the book of the kings of Judah is compiled from the historical writings of various prophets or seers." But this conclusion is neither valid nor necessary. It is not valid, for this reason, that the Chronicle, besides the narratives concerning the reigns of Rehoboam, Abijah, Uzziah, and Manasseh, which it has in common with the books of Kings, and which are in some cases identical, contains a whole series of narratives peculiar to itself, which perhaps were not contained at all in the larger historical work on the kings of Judah, or at least were not there so complete as in the special prophetic writings cited by the chronicler. As to Solomon also, the Chronicle has something peculiar to itself which is not found in the book of Kings. Nor is the conclusion necessary; for from a number of identical passages in our canonical books of Kings and Chronicles, the only certain conclusion which can be drawn is, that these narratives were contained in the authorities quoted by both writers, but not that the variously named authorities form one and the same work.
By all this we are justified in maintaining the view, that the writings quoted by the author of the Chronicle under the titles, Words, Prophecy, Visions of this and that prophet, with the exception of the two whose incorporation with the book of Kings is specially mentioned, lay before him as writings separate and distinct from the "Books of the Kings of Israel and Judah," that these writings were also in the hands of many of his contemporaries, and that he could refer his readers to them. On this supposition, we can comprehend the change in the titles of the works quoted; while on the contrary supposition, that the special prophetic writings quoted were parts of the larger history of the kings of Israel and Judah, it remains inexplicable. But the references of the chronicler are not to be understood as if all he relates, for example, of the reign of David was contained in the words of the seer Samuel, of the prophet Nathan, and of the seer Gad, the writings he quotes for that reign. He may, as Berth. S. xxxviii. has already remarked, "have made use also of authorities which he did not feel called upon to name,"-as, for example, the lists of David's heroes, 1 Chron 11:10-47, and of those who gave in their adherence to David before the death of Saul, and who anointed him king in Hebron, ch. 12. Such also are the catalogues of the leaders of the host, of the princes of the tribes, and the stewards of the royal domains, ch. 27; of the fathers'- houses of the Levites, and the divisions of the priests, Levites, and singers, etc., ch. 23-26. These lists contain records to whose sources he did not need to refer, even if he had extracted them from the public annals of the kingdom during the reign of David, because he has embodied them in their integrity in his book.
But our canonical books of Samuel and Kings are by no means to be reckoned among the sources possibly used besides the writings which are quoted. It cannot well be denied that the author of the Chronicle knew these books; but that he has used them as authorities, as de Wette, Movers, Ewald, and others think, we must, with Bertheau and Dillmann, deny. The single plausible ground which is usually brought forward to prove the use of these writings, is the circumstance that the Chronicle contains many narratives corresponding to those found in the books of Samuel and Kings, and often verbally identical with them. But that is fully accounted for by the fact that the chronicler used the same more detailed writings as the authors of the books of Samuel and Kings, and has extracted the narratives in question, partly with verbal accuracy, partly with some small alterations, from them. Against the supposition that the above-named canonical books were used by the chronicler, we may adduce the facts that the chronicle, even in those corresponding passages, differs in many ways as to names and events from the account in those books, and that it contains, on an average, more than they do, as will be readily seen on an exact comparison of the parallel sections. Other and much weaker grounds for believing that the books of Samuel and Kings were used by the chronicler, are refuted in my Handbook of Introduction, 141, 2; and in it, at 139, is to be found a synoptical arrangement of the parallel sections. 4. The Historical Character of the Chronicles.
The historic truth or credibility of the books of the Chronicle, which de Wette, in the Beitrr. zur Einleit. 1806, violently attacked, in order to get rid of the evidence of the Chronicle for the Mosaic origin of the Sinaitic legislation, is now again in the main generally recognised. (Note: Cf. Bertheau, Com. S. xliii, and Dillmann, loc cit. The decision of the latter is as follows, S. 693: "This work has a great part of its narratives and information in common with the older canonical historical books, and very often corresponds verbally, or almost verbally, with them; but another and equally important part is peculiar to itself. This relationship was, formerly, in the time of the specially negative criticism, explained by the supposition that the chronicler had derived the information which he has in common with these books from them, and that every difference and peculiarity arose from misunderstanding, misinterpretation, a desire to ornament, intentional misrepresentation, and pure invention (so especially de Wette in his Beitrr., and Gramberg, die Chronik nach ihrem geschichtl. Karakter, 1823). The historic credibility of the Chronicle has, however, been long ago delivered from such measureless suspicions, and recognised (principally by the efforts of Keil, apologet. Versuch, 1833; Movers, die bibl. Chronik, 1834; Haevernick, in the Einleitung, 1839; and Ewald, in the Geschichte Israels). It is now again acknowledged that the chronicler has written everywhere from authorities, and that intentional fabrications or misrepresentations of the history can no more be spoken of in connection with him." Only K. H. Graf has remained so far behind the present stage of Old Testament inquiry as to seek to revive the views of de Wette and Gramberg as to the Chronicle and the Pentateuch. For further information as to the attacks of de Wette and Gramberg, and their refutation, see my apologet. Versuche über die BB. der Chronik, 1833, and in the Handbook of Introduction, and 144.)
The care with which the chronicler has used his authorities may be seen, on a comparison of the narratives common to the Chronicle with the books of Samuel and Kings, not only from the fact that in these parallel sections the story of the chronicler agrees in all essential points with the accounts of these books, but also from the variations which are to be met with. For these variations, in respect to their matter, give us in many ways more accurate and fuller information, and in every other respect are of a purely formal kind, in great part affecting only the language and style of expression, or arising from the hortatory-didactic aim of the narrative. But this hortatory aim has nowhere had a prejudicial effect on the objective truth of the statement of historical facts, as appears on every hand on deeper and more attentive observation, but has only imparted to the history a more subjective impress, as compared with the objective style of the books of Kings.
Now, since the parallel places are of such a character, we are, as Bertheau and Dillmann frankly acknowledge, justified in believing that the author of the Chronicle, in the communication of narratives not elsewhere to be found in the Old Testament, has followed his authorities very closely, and that not only the many registers which we find in his work-the lists in Chron 12; 23:1-27:34; the catalogue of cities fortified by Rehoboam, Chron 11:6-12; the family intelligence, 1 Chron 11:18-23; 21:2, and such matters-have been communicated in exact accordance with his authorities, but also the accounts of the wars of Rehoboam, Abijah, Jehoshaphat (ch. 20), Amaziah, etc. Only here and there, Bertheau thinks, has he used the opportunity offered to him to treat the history in a freer way, so as to represent the course of the more weighty events, and such as specially attracted his attention, according to his own view.
This appears especially, he says (1) in the account of the speeches of David,1 Chron 13:2f., 15:12f., 28:2-10,20f., 29:1-5 and 10-19, where, too, there occur statements of the value of the precious metals destined for the building of the temple (1 Chron 29:4,7), which clearly do not rest upon truthful historical recollection, and can by no means have been derived from a trustworthy source; as also in the reports of those of Abijah (2 Chron 13:5-10) and of Asa (1 Chron 14:10, etc.); then (2) in the description of the religious ceremonies and feasts (1 Chron 15 and 16; Chron 5:1-7:10, ch. 29-31, ch. 35): for in both speeches and descriptions expressions and phrases constantly recur which may be called current expressions with the chronicler. Yet these speeches stand quite on a level with those of Solomon,2 Chron 1:8-10; ch.6:4-11,12-42, which are also to be found in the books of Kings (1 Chr. 3:6-9; 1 Chr 8:14-53), from which it is to be inferred that the author here has not acted quite independently, but that in this respect also older histories may have served him as a model.
But even in these descriptions information is not lacking which must rest upon a more accurate historical recollection, e.g., the names in 1 Chron 15:5-11,17-24; the statement as to the small number of priests, and the help given to them by the Levites, in 2 Chron 29:14f., 30:17. Yet we must, beyond doubt, believe that the author of the Chronicle "has in these descriptions transferred that which had become established custom in his own time, and which according to general tradition rested upon ancient ordinance, without hesitation, to an earlier period."
Of these two objections so much is certainly correct, that in the speeches of the persons acting in the history, and in the descriptions of the religious feasts, the freer handling of the authorities appears most strongly; but no alterations of the historical circumstances, nor additions in which the circumstances of the older time have been unhistorically represented according to the ideas or the taste of the post-exilic age, can, even here, be anywhere pointed out. With regard, first of all, to the speeches in the Chronicle, they are certainly not given according to the sketches or written reports of the hearers, but sketched and composed by the historian according to a truthful tradition of the fundamental thoughts. For although, in all the speeches of the Chronicle, certain current and characteristic expressions and phrases of the author of this book plainly occur, yet it is just as little doubtful that the speeches of the various persons are essentially different from one another in their thoughts, and characteristic images and words.
By this fact it is placed beyond doubt that they have not been put into the mouths of the historical persons either by the chronicler or by the authors of the original documents upon which he relies, but have been composed according to the reports or written records of the ear-witnesses. For if we leave out of consideration the short sayings or words of the various persons, such as 1 Chron 11:1f., 12:12f., 15:12f., etc., which contain nothing characteristic, there are in the Chronicle only three longer speeches of King David (1 Chr. 22:7-16; 28:2-10,12-22, and 29:1-5), all of which have reference to the transfer of the kingdom to his son Solomon, and in great part treat, on the basis of the divine promise (2 Sam 7 and 1 Chron 17), of the building of the temple, and the preparations for this work.
In these speeches the peculiarities of the chronicler come so strongly into view, in contents and form, in thought and language, that we must believe them to be free representations of the thoughts which in those days moved the soul of the grey-haired king. But if we compare with these David's prayer (1 Chron 29:10-19), we find in it not only that multiplication of the predicates of God which is so characteristic of David (cf. Ps 18), but also, in vv. 11 and 15, definite echoes of the Davidic psalms. The speech of Abijah, again, against the apostate Israel (2 Chron 13:4-12), moves, on the whole, within the circle of thought usual with the chronicler, but contains in v. 7 expressions such as reeqiym 'anaashiym and b|liya`al b|neey , which are quite foreign to the language of the Chronicle, and belong to the times of David and Solomon, and consequently point to sources contemporaneous with the events.
The same thing is true of Hezekiah's speech (2 Chron 32:7-8), in which the expression baasaar z|rowa` , "the arm of flesh," recalls the intimacy of this king with the prophet Isaiah (cf. Isa 31:3). The sayings and speeches of the prophets, on the contrary, are related much more in their original form. Take, for instance, the remarkable speech of Azariah ben Oded to King Asa (2 Chron 15:1-7), which, on account of its obscurity, has been very variously explained, and which, as is well known, is the foundation of the announcement made by Christ of the destruction of Jerusalem and the last judgment (Matt 24:6-7; Luke 21:19). As C. P.
Caspari (der syrisch-ephraimit. Krieg., Christiania 1849, S. 54) has already remarked, it is so peculiar, and bears so little of the impress of the Chronicle, that it is impossible that it can have been produced by the chronicler himself: it must have been taken over by him from his authorities almost without alteration.
From this one speech, whose contents he could hardly have reproduced accurately in his own words, and which he has consequently left almost unaltered, we can see clearly enough that the chronicler has taken over the speeches he communicates with fidelity, so far as their contents are concerned, and has only clothed them formally, more or less, in his own language. This treatment of the speeches in the Chronicle is, however, not a thing peculiar and confined to the author of this book, but is, as Delitzsch has shown (Isaiah, p. 17ff. tr.), common to all the biblical historians; for even in the prophecies in the books of Samuel and Kings distinct traces are observable throughout of the influence of the narrator, and they bear more or less visibly upon them in impress of the writer who reproduces them, without their historical kernel being thereby affected.
Now the historical truth of the events is just as little interfered with by the circumstance that the author of the Chronicle works out rhetorically the descriptions of the celebration of the holy feasts, represents in detail the offering of the sacrifices, and has spoken in almost all of these descriptions of the musical performances of the Levites and priests. The conclusion which has been drawn from this, that he has here without hesitation transferred to an earlier time that which had become established custom in his own time, would only then be correct if the restoration of the sacrificial worship according to the ordinance of Leviticus, or the introduction of instrumental music and the singing of psalms, dated only from the time of the exile, as de Wette, Gramberg, and others have maintained.
If, on the contrary, these arrangements and regulations be of Mosaic, and in a secondary sense of Davidic origin, then the chronicler has not transferred the customs and usages of his own time to the times of David, Asa, Hezekiah, and others, but has related what actually occurred under these circumstances, only giving to the description an individual colouring.
Take, for example, the hymn (1 Chron 16:8-36) which David caused to be sung by Asaph and his brethren in praise of the Lord, after the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem into the tabernacle prepared for it (1 Chron 16:7). If it was not composed by David for this ceremony, but has been substituted by the chronicler, in his endeavour to represent the matter in a vivid way, from among the psalms sung in his own time on such solemn occasions, for the psalm which was then sung, but which was not communicated by his authority, nothing would be altered in the historical fact that then for the first time, by Asaph and his brethren, God was praised in psalms; for the psalm given adequately expresses the sentiments and feelings which animated the king and the assembled congregation at that solemn festival.
To give another example: the historical details of the last assembly of princes which David held (1 Chron 28) are not altered if David did not go over with his son Solomon, one by one, all the matters regarding the temple enumerated in 1 Chron 28:11-19.
There now remains, therefore, only some records of numbers in the Chronicle which are decidedly too large to be considered either accurate or credible. Such are the sums of gold mentioned in 1 Chron 22:14 and 29:4,7, which David had collected for the building of the temple, and which the princes of the tribes expended for this purpose; the statements as to the greatness of the armies of Abijah and Jeroboam, of the number of the Israelites who fell in battle (2 Chron 13:3,17), of the number of King Asa's army and that of the Cushites (2 Chron 14:7f.), of the military force of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 17:14-18), and of the women and children who were led away captive under Ahaz (2 Chron 28:8). But these numbers cannot shake the historical credibility of the Chronicle in general, because they are too isolated, and differ too greatly from statements of the Chronicle in other places which are in accordance with fact.
To estimate provisionally and in general these surprising statements, the more exact discussion of which belongs to the Commentary, we must consider, (1) that they all contain round numbers, in which thousands only are taken into account, and are consequently not founded upon any exact enumeration, but only upon an approximate estimate of contemporaries, and attest nothing more than that the greatness of the armies, and the multitude of those who had fallen in battle or were taken prisoner, was estimated at so high a number; (2) that the actual amount of the mass of gold and silver which had been collected by David for the building of the temple cannot with certainty be reckoned, because we are ignorant of the weight of the shekel of that time; and (3) that the correctness of the numbers given is very doubtful, since it is indubitably shown, by a great number of passages of the Old Testament, that the Hebrews have from the earliest times expressed their numbers not by words, but by letters, and consequently omissions might very easily occur, or errors arise, in copying or writing out in words the sums originally written in letters.
Such textual errors are so manifest in not a few place, that their existence cannot be doubted; and that not merely in the books of the Chronicle, but in all the historical books of the Old Testament. The Philistines, according to 1 Sam 13:5, for example, brought 30,000 chariots and 6000 horsemen into the field; and according to 1 Sam 6:19, God smote of the people at Beth-shemesh 50,070 men. With respect to these statements, all commentators are now agreed that the numbers 30,000 and 50,000 are incorrect, and have come into the text by errors of the copyists; and that instead of 30,000 chariots there were originally only 1000, or at most 3000, spoken of, and that the 50,000 in the second passage is an ancient gloss. There is, moreover, at present no doubt among investigators of Scripture, that in 1 Kings 5:6 (in English version, 4:26) the number 40,000 (stalls) is incorrect, and that instead of it, according to 2 Chron 9:25,4000 should be read; and further, that the statement of the age of King Ahaziah at 42 years (2 Chr. 22:22), instead of 22 years (2 Kings 8:26), has arisen by an interchange of the numeral signs m and b.
A similar case is to be found in Ezra 2:69, compared with Neh 7:70-72, where, according to Ezra, the chiefs of the people gave 61,000 darics for the restoration of the temple, and according to Nehemiah only 41,000 (viz., 1000 + 20,000 + 20,000). In both of these chapters a multitude of differences is to be found in reference to the number of the exiled families who returned from Babylon, which can only be explained on the supposition of the numeral letters having been confounded. But almost all these different statements of numbers are to be found in the oldest translation of the Old Testament, that of the LXX, from which it appears that they had made their way into the MSS before the settlement of the Hebrew text by the Masoretes, and that consequently the use of letters as numeral signs was customary in the pre-Masoretic times.
This use of the letters is attested and presupposed as generally known by both Hieronymus and the rabbins, and is confirmed by the Maccabean coins. That it is a primeval custom, and reaches back into the times of the composition of the biblical books, is clear from this fact, that the employment of the alphabet as numeral signs among the Greeks coincides with the Hebrew alphabet. This presupposes that the Greeks received, along with the alphabet, at the same time the use of the letters as numeral signs from the Semites (Phoenicians or Hebrews). The custom of writing the numbers in words, which prevails in the Masoretic text of the Bible, was probably first introduced by the Masoretes in settling the rules for the writing of the sacred books of the canon, or at least then became law.
After all these facts, we may conclude the Introduction to the books of the Chronicle, feeling assured of our result, that the books, in regard to their historical contents, notwithstanding the hortatory-didactic aim of the author in bringing the history before us, have been composed with care and fidelity according to the authorities, and are fully deserving of belief.
As to the exegetical literature, see my Handbook of Introduction, 138.
I. GENEALOGIES, WITH HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL NOTES. CH. 1-9.
In order to show the connection of the tribal ancestors of Israel with the peoples of the earth, in ch. 1 are enumerated the generations of the primeval world, from Adam till the Flood, and those of the post-diluvians to Abraham and his sons, according to the accounts in Genesis; in ch. 2-8, the twelve tribal ancestors of the people of Israel, and the most important families of the twelve tribes, are set down; and finally, in ch. 9, we have a list of the former inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the genealogical table of King Saul. The enumeration of the tribes and families of Israel forms, accordingly, the chief part of the contents of this first part of the Chronicle, to which the review of the families and tribes of the primeval time and the early days of Israel form the introduction, and the information as to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the family of King Saul the conclusion and the transition, to the following historical narrative.
Now, if we glance at the order in which the genealogies of the tribes of Israel are ranged-Viz. (a) those of the families of Judah and of the house of David,1 Chron 2:1-4:23; (b) those of the tribe of Simeon, with an account of their dwelling-place, 1 Chron 4:24-43; (c) those of the trans-Jordanic tribes, Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, 1 Chron 5; (d) of the tribe of Levi, or the priests and Levites,1 Chr 5:27-6:66; (e) of the remaining tribes, viz., Issachar, Benjamin, Naphtali, cis-Jordanic Manasseh, Ephraim, and Asher, ch. 7; and of some still remaining families of Benjamin, with the family of Saul, ch. 8-it is at once seen that this arrangement is the result of regarding the tribes from two points of view, which are closely connected with each other. On the one hand, regard is had to the historical position which the tribes took up, according to the order of birth of their tribal ancestors, and which they obtained by divine promise and guidance; on the other hand, the geographical position of their inheritance has been also taken into account.
That regard to the historical position and importance of the tribes was mainly determinative, is plain from the introductory remarks to the genealogies of the tribe of Reuben,1 Chron 5:1-2, to the effect that Reuben was the first-born of Israel, but that, because of his offence against his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, although they are not specified as possessors of it in the family registers; while it is narrated that Judah, on the contrary, came to power among his brethren, and that out of Judah had come forth the prince over Israel. Judah is therefore placed at the head of the tribes, as that one out of which God chose the king over His people; and Simeon comes next in order, because they had received their inheritance within the tribal domain of Judah. Then follows Reuben as the first-born, and after him are placed Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh, because they had received their inheritance along with Reuben on the other side of the Jordan. After Reuben, according to age, only Levi could follow, and then after Levi come in order the other tribes.
The arrangement of them, however-Issachar, Benjamin, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, Asher, and again Benjamin-is determined from neither the historical nor by the geographical point of view, but probably lay ready to the hand of the chronicler in the document used by him, as we are justified in concluding from the character of all these geographical and topographical lists.
For if we consider the character of these lists somewhat more carefully, we find that they are throughout imperfect in their contents, and fragmentary in their plan and execution. The imperfection in the contents shows itself in this, that no genealogies of the tribes of Dan and Zebulun are given at all, only the sons of Naphtali being mentioned (1 Chron 7:13); of the half tribe of Manasseh beyond Jordan we have only the names of some heads of fathers'-houses (Note: It may perhaps be useful to notice here our author's use of the words Geschlecht, Vaterhaus, and Familie, and the rendering of them in English. As he states in a subsequent page, the Geschlechteer are the larger divisions of the tribes tracing their descent from the sons of the twelve patriarchs; the Väterhäuser are the subdivisions descended from their grandsons or great-grandsons; while the Familien are the component parts of the Väterhäuser. The author's use of these words is somewhat vacillating; but Geschlecht, in this connection, has always been rendered by "family," Väterhaus by "father's-house," Familie by 'household," and Familiengruppen by "groups of related households."-Tr.) (5:24); and even in the relatively copious lists of the tribes of Judah, Levi, and Benjamin, only the genealogies of single prominent families of these tribes are enumerated.
In Judah, little more is given than the families descended from Pharez, Chron 2:5-4:20, and a few notices of the family of Shelah; of Levi, none are noticed but the succession of generations in the high-priestly line of Aaron, some descendants of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, and the three Levites, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, set over the service of song; while of Benjamin we have only the genealogies of three families, and of the family of Saul, which dwelt at Gibeon. But the incompleteness of these registers comes still more prominently into view when we turn our attention to the extent of the genealogical lists, and see that only in the cases of the royal house of David and the high-priestly line of Eleazar do the genealogies reach to the Babylonian exile, and a few generations beyond that point; while all the others contain the succession of generations for only short periods. Then, again, in regard to their plan and execution, these genealogies are not only unsymmetrical in the highest degree, but they are in many cases fragmentary.
In the tribe of Judah, besides the descendants of David, ch. 3, two quite independent genealogies of the families of Judah are given, in ch. 2 and Chron 4:1-23. The same is the case with the two genealogies of the Levites, the lists in ch. 6 differing from those in 1 Chr 5:27-41 surprisingly, in 6:1,28,47,56, Levi's eldest son being called Gershom, while in 1 Chr. 5:27 and 1 Chr. 23:61, and in the Pentateuch, he is called Gershon. Besides this, there is in 1 Chron 6:35-38 a fragment containing the names of some of Aaron's descendants, who had been already completely enumerated till the Babylonian exile in 1 Chr 5:29-41. In the genealogies of Benjamin, too, the family of Saul is twice entered, viz., in Chron 8:29-40 and in 1 Chron 9:35-44. The genealogies of the remaining tribes are throughout defective in the highest degree. Some consist merely of an enumeration of a number of heads of houses or families, with mention of their dwelling-place: as, for instance, the genealogies of Simeon,1 Chron 4:24-43; of Reuben, Gad, half Manasseh, 1 Chron 5:1-24; and Ephraim, ch. 7:28-29. Others give only the number of men capable of bearing arms belonging to the individual fathers'-houses, as those of Issachar, Benjamin, and Asher,1 Chron 7:2-5,7-11,40; and finally, of the longer genealogical lists of Judah and Benjamin, those in 1 Chron 4:1-20 and in ch. 8 consist only of fragments, loosely ranged one after the other, giving us the names of a few of the posterity of individual men, whose genealogical connection with the larger divisions of these tribes is not stated.
By all this, it is satisfactorily proved that all these registers and lists have not been derived from one larger genealogical historical work, but have been drawn together from various old genealogical lists which single races and families had saved and carried with them into exile, and preserved until their return into the land of their fathers; and that the author of the Chronicle has received into his work all of these that he could obtain, whether complete or imperfect, just as he found them. Nowhere is any trace of artificial arrangement or an amalgamation of the various lists to be found.
Now, when we recollect that the Chronicle was composed in the time of Ezra, and that up to that time, of the whole people, for the most part only households and families of the tribes of Judah, Levi, and Benjamin had returned to Canaan, we will not find it wonderful that the Chronicle contains somewhat more copious registers of these three tribes, and gives us only fragments bearing on the circumstances of prae-exilic times in the case of the remaining tribes.
CH. 1. THE FAMILIES OF PRIMEVAL TIME, AND OF THE ANTIQUITY OF ISRAEL.
1 CHRONICLES. 1:1-4
Adam, Sheth, Enosh, Verse 1-4. The patriarchs from Adam to Noah and his sons.-The names of the ten patriarchs of the primeval world, from the Creation to the Flood, and the three sons of Noah, are given according to Gen 5, and grouped together without any link of connection whatever: it is assumed as known from Genesis, that the first ten names denote generations succeeding one another, and that the last three, on the contrary, are the names of brethren.
1 CHRONICLES. 1:5-23
The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
The peoples and races descended from the sons of Noah.-These are enumerated according to the table in Gen 10; but our author has omitted not only the introductory and concluding remarks (Gen 10:1,21,32), but also the historical notices of the founding of a kingdom in Babel by Nimrod, and the distribution of the Japhetites and Shemites in their dwelling-places (Gen. 10:5,9-12,18b-20, and 30 and 31). The remaining divergences are partly orthographic-such as tubat, v. 5, for tuwbaal, Gen 10:2, and ra`|maa' , v. 9, for ra`|maah , Gen 10:7; and partly arising from errors of transcription-as, for example, diypat , v. 6, for riypat , Gen 10:3, and conversely, rowdaaniym , v. 7, for dodaaniym , Gen 10:4, where it cannot with certainty be determined which form is the original and correct one; and finally, are partly due to a different pronunciation or form of the same name-as tar|shiyshaah , v. 7, for tar|shiysh , Gen 10:4, the aa of motion having been gradually fused into one word with the name, luwdiyiym, v. 11, for luwdiym , Gen 10:13, just as in Amos 9:7 we have kuwshiyiym for kuwshiym ; in v. 22, `eeybaal for `owbaal , Gen 10:28, where the LXX have also Eua'l, and meshek| , v. 17, for mash , Gen 10:23, which last has not yet been satisfactorily explained, since meshek| is used in Ps 120:5 with qeedaar of an Arabian tribe.
Finally, there is wanting in v. 17 'araam uwb|neey before `uwts , Gen 10:23, because, as in the case of Noah's sons, v. 4, where their relationship is not mentioned, so also in reference to the peoples descended from Shem, the relationship subsisting between the names Uz, Hul, etc., and Aram, is supposed to be already known from Genesis. Other suppositions as to the omission of the words 'araam uwb|neey are improbable. That this register of seventy-one persons and tribes, descended from Shem, Ham, and Japhet, has been taken from Gen 10, is placed beyond doubt, by the fact that not only the names of our register exactly correspond with the table in Gen 10, with the exception of the few variations above mentioned, but also the plan and form of both registers is quite the same. In vv. 5-9 the sections of the register are connected, as in Gen 10:2-7, by uwb|neey ; from v. onwards by yaalad , as in Gen. v. 8; in v. 17, again, by b|neey , as in Gen. v. 22; and in v. 18 by yaalad , and v. 19 by yulad , as in Gen. vv. 24 and 25.
The historical and geographical explanation of the names has been given in the commentary to Gen 10. According to Bertheau, the peoples descended from the sons of Noah amount to seventy, and fourteen of these are enumerated as descendants of Japhet, thirty of Ham, and twenty-six of Shem. These numbers he arrives at by omitting Nimrod, or not enumerating him among the sons of Ham; while, on the contrary, he takes Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, and Joktan, all of which are the names of persons, for names of people, in contradiction to Genesis, according to which the five names indicate persons, viz., the tribal ancestors of the Terahites and Joktanites, peoples descended from Eber by Peleg and Joktan.
1 CHRONICLES. 1:24-27
Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, The patriarchs from Shem to Abraham.-The names of these, again, are simply ranged in order according to Gen 11:10-26, while the record of their ages before the begetting and after the birth of sons is omitted. Of the sons of Terah only Abram is named, without his brothers; with the remark that Abram is Abraham, in order to point out to the reader that he was the progenitor of the chosen people so well known from Genesis (cf. ch. 17).
1 CHRONICLES. 1:28-34
The sons of Abraham; Isaac, and Ishmael.
The sons of Abraham.-In v. 28 only Isaac and Ishmael are so called; Isaac first, as the son of the promise. Then, in vv. 29-31, follow the posterity of Ishmael, with the remark that Ishmael was the first-born; in vv. 32 and 33, the sons of Keturah; and finally in v. 34, the two sons of Isaac.
Verse 29-33. The names of the generations (towl|dowt ) of Ishmael (Hebr. Yishma'el) correspond to those in Gen 25:12-15, and have been there explained. In v. 32f. also, the names of the thirteen descendants of Abraham by Keturah, six sons and seven grandsons, agree with Gen 25:1-4 (see commentary on that passage); only the tribes mentioned in Gen 25:3, which were descended from Dedan the grandson of Keturah, are omitted.
From this Bertheau wrongly concludes that the chronicler probably did not find these names in his copy of the Pentateuch. The reason of the omission is rather this, that in Genesis the great-grandchildren are not themselves mentioned, but only the tribes descended from the grandchildren, while the chronicler wished to enumerate only the sons and grandsons. Keturah is called piylegesh after Gen 25:6, where Keturah and Hagar are so named.
Verse 34. The two sons of Isaac. Isaac has been already mentioned as a son of Abram, along with Ishmael, in v. 28. But here the continuation of the genealogy of Abraham is prefaced by the remark that Abraham begat Isaac, just as in Gen 25:19, where the begetting of Isaac the son of Abraham is introduced with the same remark. Hence the supposition that the registers of the posterity of Abraham by Hagar and Keturah (vv. 28- 33) have been derived from Gen 25, already in itself so probable, becomes a certainty.
1 CHRONICLES. 1:35-42
The sons of Esau; Eliphaz, Reuel, and Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah.
The posterity of Esau and Seir.-An extract from Gen 36:1-30. V. 35. The five sons of Esau are the same who, according to Gen 36:4f., were born to him of his three wives in the land of Canaan. y|`uwsh is another form of y|`iysh , Gen. v. 5 (Kethibh).
Verse 36,37. The grandchildren of Esau. In v. 36 there are first enumerated five sons of his son Eliphaz, as in Gen 36:11, for ts|piy is only another form of ts|pow (Gen.). Next to these five names are ranged in addition wa`amaaleeq w|tim|na` , "Timna and Amalek," while we learn from Gen 36:12 that Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, who bore to him Amalek. The addition of the two names Timna and Amalek in the Chronicle thus appears to be merely an abbreviation, which the author might well allow himself, as the posterity of Esau were known to his readers from Genesis. The name Timna, too, by its form (a feminine formation), must have guarded against the idea of some modern exegetes that Timna was also a son of Eliphaz. Thus, then, Esau had through Eliphaz six grandchildren, who in Gen 36:12 are all set down as sons of Adah, the wife of Esau and the mother of Eliphaz. (Vide com. to Gen 36:12, where the change of Timna into a son of Eliphaz is rejected as a misinterpretation.)
Verse 37. To Reuel, the son of Esau by Bashemath, four sons were born, whose names correspond to those in Gen 36:13. These ten (6 + 4) grandsons of Esau were, with his three sons by Aholibamah (Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah, v. 35), the founders of the thirteen tribes of the posterity of Esau. They are called in Gen 36:15 `eesaaw b|neey 'aluwpeey , heads of tribes (fu'larchoi) of the children of Esau, i.e., of the Edomites, but are all again enumerated, vv. 15-19, singly. (Note: The erroneous statement of Bertheau, therefore, that "according to Genesis the Edomite people was also divided into twelve tribes, five tribes from Eliphaz, four tribes from Reuel, and the three tribes which were referred immediately to Aholibamah the wife of Esau. It is distinctly stated that Amalek was connected with these twelve tribes only very loosely, for he appears as the son of the concubine of Eliphaz,"-must be in so far corrected, that neither the Chronicle nor Genesis knows anything of the twelve tribes of the Edomites. Both books, on the contrary, mention thirteen grandsons of Esau, and these thirteen grandsons are, according to the account of Genesis, the thirteen phylarchs of the Edomite people, who are distributed according to the three wives of Esau; so that the thirteen families may be grouped together in three tribes. Nor is Amalek connected only in a loose way with the other tribes in Genesis: he is, on the contrary, not only included in the number of the sons of Adah in v. 12, probably because Timna stood in the same relationship to Adah the wife of Esau as Hagar held to Sarah, but also is reckoned in v. 16 among the Allufim of the sons of Eliphaz. Genesis therefore enumerates not five but six tribes from Eliphaz; and the chronicler has not "completely obliterated the twelvefold division," as Bertheau further maintains, but the thirteen sons and grandsons of Esau who became phylarchs are all introduced; and the only thing which is omitted in reference to them is the title `eesaaw b|neey 'aluwpeey , it being unnecessary in a genealogical enumeration of the descendants of Esau.)
Verse 38-42. When Esau with his descendants had settled in Mount Seir, they subdued by degrees the aboriginal inhabitants of the land, and became fused with them into one people. For this reason, in Gen 36:20-30 the tribal princes of the Seirite inhabitants of the land are noticed; and in our chapter also, v. 38, the names of these seven see`iyr b|neey , and in vv. 39-42 of their sons (eighteen men and one woman, Timna), are enumerated, where only Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, also mentioned in Gen 36:25, is omitted. The names correspond, except in a few unimportant points, which have been already discussed in the Commentary on Genesis. The inhabitants of Mount Seir consisted, then, after the immigration of Esau and his descendants, of twenty tribes under a like number of phylarchs, thirteen of whom were Edomite, of the family of Esau, and seven Seirite, who are called in the Chronicle see`iyr b|neey , and in Genesis choriy , Troglodytes, inhabitants of the land, that is, aborigines.
If we glance over the whole posterity of Abraham as they are enumerated in vv. 28-42, we see that it embraces 9a) his sons Ishmael and Isaac, and Isaac's sons Israel and Esau (together 4 persons); (b) the sons of Ishmael, or the tribes descended from Ishmael (12 names); (c) the sons and grandsons of Keturah (13 persons or chiefs); (d) the thirteen phylarchs descended from Esau; (e) the seven Seirite phylarchs, and eighteen grandsons and a granddaughter of Seir (26 persons). We have thus in all the names of sixty-eight persons, and to them we must add Keturah, and Timna the concubine of Eliphaz, before we get seventy persons. But these seventy must not by any means be reckoned as seventy tribes, which is the result Bertheau arrives at by means of strange calculations and errors in numbers. (Note: That the Chronicle gives no countenance to this view appears from Bertheau's calculation of the 70 tribes: from Ishmael,12; from Keturah, 13; from Isaac,2; from Esau,5 sons and 7 grandchildren of Eliphaz (Timna, v. 36, being included in the number), and 4 grandsons by Reuel-16 in all; from Seir 7 sons, and from these 20 other descendants, 27 in all, which makes the sum of 70. But the biblical text mentions only 19 other descendants of Seir, so that only persons came from Seir, and the sum is therefore 12 + 13 + 2 + 16 + 26 = 69. But we must also object to other points in Bertheau's reckoning: (1) the arbitrary change of Timna into a grandchild of Esau; (2) the arbitrary reckoning of Esau and Israel (= Jacob) without Ishmael. Was Esau, apart from his sons, the originator of a people?
Had the author of the Chronicle cherished the purpose attributed to him by Bertheau, of bringing the lists of names handed down by tradition to the round or significant number 70, he would certainly in v. 33 not have omitted the three peoples descended from Dedan (Gen 25:3), as he might by these names have completed the number without further trouble.)
Upon this conclusion he founds his hypothesis, that as the three branches of the family of Noah are divided into seventy peoples (which, as we have seen at p. 402f., is not the case), so also the three branches of the family of Abraham are divided into seventy tribes; and in this again he finds a remarkable indication "that even in the time of the chronicler, men sought by means of numbers to bring order and consistency into the lists of names handed down by tradition from the ancient times."
1 CHRONICLES. 1:43-50
Now these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel; Bela the son of Beor: and the name of his city was Dinhabah.
The kings of Edom before the introduction of the kingship into Israel.-This is a verbally exact repetition of Gen 36:31-39, except that the introductory formula, Gen. v. 32, "and there reigned in Edom," which is superfluous after the heading, and the addition "ben Achbor" (Gen. v. 39) in the account of the death of Baal-hanan in v. 50, are omitted; the latter because even in Genesis, where mention is made of the death of other kings, the name of the father of the deceased king is not repeated. Besides this, the king called Hadad (v. 46f.), and the city paa`ey (v. 50), are in Genesis Hadar (v. 35f.) and paa`uw (v. 39). The first of these variations has arisen from a transcriber's error, the other from a different pronunciation of the name. A somewhat more important divergence, however, appears, when in Gen. v. 39 the death of the king last named is not mentioned, because he was still alive in the time of Moses; while in the Chronicle, on the contrary, not only of him also is it added, hadaad wayaamaat , because at the time of the writing of the Chronicle he had long been dead, but the list of the names of the territories of the phylarchs, which in Genesis follows the introductory formula sheemowt w|'eeleh , is here connected with the enumeration of the kings by wayih|yuw , "Hadad died, and there were chiefs of Edom." This may mean that, in the view of the chronicler, the reign of the phylarchs took the place of the kingship after the death of the last king, but that interpretation is by no means necessary. The w consec. may also merely express the succession of thought, only connecting logically the mention of the princes with the enumeration of the kings; or it may signify that, besides the kings, there were also tribal princes who could rule the land and people. The contents of the register which follows require that wayih|yuw should be so understood.
1 CHRONICLES. 1:51-54
Hadad died also. And the dukes of Edom were; duke Timnah, duke Aliah, duke Jetheth, The princes of Edom.-The names correspond to those in Gen 36:40-43, but the heading and the subscription in Genesis are quite different from those in the Chronicle. Here the heading is, "and the Allufim of Edom were," and the subscription, "these are the Allufim of Edom," from which it would be the natural conclusion that the eleven names given are proper names of the phylarchs. But the occurrence of two female names, Timna and Aholibamah, as also of names which are unquestionably those of races, e.g., Aliah, Pinon, Teman, and Mibzar, is irreconcilable with this interpretation. If we compare the heading and subscription of the register in Genesis, we find that the former speaks of the names "of the Allufim of Edom according to their habitations, (Note: So it is given by the author, "nach ihren Wohnsitzen;" but this must be a mistake, for the word is mish|p|chowtaam = their families, not mosh|botaam , as it is in the subscription.-Tr.) according to their places in their names," and the latter of "the Allufim of Edom according to their habitations in the land of their possession."
It is there unambiguously declared that the names enumerated are not the names of persons, but the names of the dwelling-places of the Allufim, after whom they were wont to be named. We must therefore translate, "the Alluf of Timna, the Alluf of Aliah," etc., when of course the female names need not cause any surprise, as places can just as well receive their names from women as their possessors as from men. Nor is there any greater difficulty in this, that only eleven dwelling-places are mentioned, while, on the contrary, the thirteen sons and grandsons of Esau are called Allufim. For in the course of time the number of phylarchs might have decreased, or in the larger districts two phylarchs may have dwelt together. Since the author of the Chronicle has taken this register also from Genesis, as the identity of the names clearly shows he did, he might safely assume that the matter was already known from that book, and so might allow himself to abridge the heading without fearing any misunderstanding; seeing, too, that he does not enumerate 'aluwpeey of Esau, but 'edowm 'aluwpeey , and Edom had become the name of a country and a people.
CH. 2-4:23. THE TWELVE SONS OF ISRAEL AND THE FAMILIES OF JUDAH.
The list of the twelve sons of Israel (1 Chron 2:1-2) serves as foundation and starting-point for the genealogies of the tribes of Israel which follow, Chron 2:3-8. The enumeration of the families of the tribe of Judah commences in v. 3 with the naming of Judah's sons, and extends to Chron 4:23. The tribe of Judah has issued from the posterity of only three of the five sons of Judah, viz., from Shelah, Pharez, and Zerah; but it was subdivided into five great families, as Hezron and Hamul, the two sons of Pharez, also founded families. The lists of our three chapters give us: (1) from the family of Zerah only the names of some famous men (2:6-8); (2) the descendants of Hezron in the three branches corresponding to the three sons of Hezron, into which they divided themselves (2:9), viz., the descendants of Ram to David (1 Chron 2:10-17), of Caleb (2:18-24), and of Jerahmeel (2:25-41). Then there follow in 1 Chron 2:42-55 four other lists of descendants of Caleb, who peopled a great number of the cities of Judah; and then in ch. 3 we have a list of the sons of David and the line of kings of the house of David, down to the grandsons of Zerubbabel; and finally, in 1 Chron 4:1-23, other genealogical fragments as to the posterity of Pharez and Shelah. Of Hamul, consequently, no descendants are noticed, unless perhaps some of the groups ranged together in 1 Chron 4:8-22, whose connection with the heads of the families of Judah is not given, are of his lineage. The lists collected in 1 Chron 4:1-20 are clearly only supplements to the genealogies of the great families contained in ch. and 3, which the author of the Chronicle found in the same fragmentary state in which they are communicated to us.
1 CHRONICLES. 2:1-2
These are the sons of Israel; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, Verse 1-2. The twelve sons of Israel, arranged as follows: first, the six sons of Leah; then Dan, the son of Rachel's handmaid; next, the sons of Rachel; and finally, the remaining sons of the handmaids. That a different place is assigned to Dan, viz., before the sons of Rachel, from that which he holds in the list in Gen 35:23ff., is perhaps to be accounted for by Rachel's wishing the son of her maid Bilhah to be accounted her own (vide Gen 30:3-6).
1 CHRONICLES. 2:3-5
The sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah: which three were born unto him of the daughter of Shua the Canaanitess. And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil in the sight of the LORD; and he slew him.
The sons of Judah and of Pharez, v. 3.f.-The five sons of Judah are given according to Gen 38, as the remark on Er which is quoted from v. 7 of that chapter shows, while the names of the five sons are to be found also in Gen 46:12. The two sons of Pharez are according to Gen 46:12, cf. Num 26:21.
1 CHRONICLES. 2:6-8
And the sons of Zerah; Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Dara: five of them in all.
Sons and descendants of Zerah.-In v. 6, five names are grouped together as baaniym of Zerah, which are found nowhere else so united. The first, Zimri, may be strictly a son; but zim|riy may perhaps be a mistake for zab|diy , for Achan, who is in v. 7 the son of Carmi, is in Josh 7:1 called the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah. But zab|diy (Josh.) may also be an error for zim|riy , or he may have been a son of Zimri, since in genealogical lists an intermediate member of the family is often passed over. Nothing certain can, however, be ascertained; both names are found elsewhere, but of persons belonging to other tribes: Zimri as prince of the Simeonites, Num 25:14; as Benjamite, Chron 8:36; 9:42; and as king of Israel, 1 Kings 16:9; Zabdi, 1 Chron 8:19 (as Benjamite), and 27:27, Neh 11:17. The four succeeding names, Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Dara, are met with again in 1 Kings 5:11, where it is said of Solomon he was wiser than the Ezrahite Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Machol, with the unimportant variation of drd` for dr`.
On this account, Movers and Bertheau, following Clericus on 1 Kings 4:31 (5:11), hold the identity of the wise men mentioned in 1 Kings 5:11 with the sons (descendants) of Zerah to be beyond doubt. But the main reason which Clericus produces in support of this supposition, the consensus quatuor nominum et quidem unius patris filiorum, and the difficulty of believing that in alia familia Hebraea there should have been quatuor fratres cognomines quatuor filiis Zerachi Judae filii, loses all its force from the fact that the supposition that the four wise men in 1 Kings 5:11 are brothers by blood, is a groundless and erroneous assumption. Since Ethan is called the Ezrahite, while the last two are said to be the sons of Machol, it is clear that the four were not brothers. The mention of them as men famous for their wisdom, does not at all require that we should think the men contemporary with each other.
Even the enumeration of these four along with Zimri as zerach b|neey in our verse does not necessarily involve that the five names denote brothers by blood; for it is plain from vv. 7 and 8 that in this genealogy only single famous names of the family of Zerah the son of Judah and Tamar are grouped together. But, on the other hand, the reasons which go to disprove the identity of the persons in our verse with those named in 1 Kings 5:11 are not of very great weight. The difference in the names dr` and drd` is obviously the result of an error of transcription, and the form haa'ez|raachiy (1 Kings 5:11) is most probably a patronymic from zerach , notwithstanding that in Num 26:20 it appears as zar|chiy , for even the appellative 'ez|rach, indigena, is formed from zerach . We therefore hold that the persons who bear the same names in our verse and in 1 Kings 5:11 are most probably identical, in spite of the addition maachowl b|neey to Calcol and Darda (1 Kings 5:11).
For that this addition belongs merely to these two names, and not to Ezrah, appears from Ps 88:1 and 89:1, which, according to the superscription, were composed by the Ezrahites Heman and Ethan. The authors of these psalms are unquestionably the Heman and Ethan who were famed for their wisdom (1 Kings 5:11), and therefore most probably the same as those spoken of in our verse as sons of Zerah. It is true that the authors of these psalms have been held by many commentators to be Levites, nay, to be the musicians mentioned in 1 Chron 15:17 and 19; but sufficient support for this view, which I myself, on 1 Kings 5:11, after the example of Hengstenberg, Beitrr. ii. S. 61, and on Ps 88 defended, cannot be found. The statement of the superscription of Ps 88:1-"a psalm of the sons of Korah"-from which it is inferred that the Ezrahite Heman was of Levitic origin, does not justify such a conclusion. (Note: The above quoted statement of the superscription of Ps 88:1 can contain no information as to the author of the psalm, for this reason, that the author is expressly mentioned in the next sentence of the superscription. The psalm can only in so far be called a song of the children of Korah, as it bears the impress peculiar to the Korahite psalms in contents and form.)
For though the musician Heman the son of Joel was Korahite of the race of Kohath (1 Chron 6:18-23), yet the musician Ethan the son of Kishi, or Kushaiah, was neither Korahite nor Kohathite, but a Merarite (6:29ff.).
Moreover, the Levites Heman and Ethan could not be enumerated among the Ezrahites, that is, the descendants of Zerah, a man of Judah.
The passages which are quoted in support of the view that the Levites were numbered with the tribes in the midst of whom they dwelt, and that, consequently, there were Judaean and Ephraimite Levites-as, for example, 1 Sam 1:1, where the father of the Levite Samuel is called an Ephrathite because he dwelt in Mount Ephraim; and Judg 17:7, where a Levite is numbered with the family of Judah because he dwelt as sojourner (gaar ) in Bethlehem, a city of Judah-certainly prove that the Levites were reckoned, as regards citizenship, according to the tribes or cities in which they dwelt, but certainly do not show that they were incorporated genealogically with those tribes because of their place of residence. (Note: Not even by intermarrying with heiresses could Levites become members of another tribe; for, according to the law, Num 36:5ff., heiresses could marry only men of their own tribe; and the possibility of a man of Judah marrying an heiress of the tribe of Levi was out of the question, for the Levites possessed no inheritance in land.)
The Levites Heman and Ethan, therefore, cannot be brought forward in our verse "as adopted sons of Zerah, who brought more honour to their father than his proper sons" (Hengstb.). This view is completely excluded by the fact that in our verse not only Ethan and Heman, but also Zimri, Calcol, and Dara are called sons of Zerah, yet these latter were not adopted sons, but true descendants of Zerah. Besides, in v. 8, there is an actual son or descendant of Ethan mentioned, and consequently b|neey and been cannot possibly be understood in some cases as implying only an adoptive relationship, and in the others actual descent. But the similarity of the names is not of itself sufficient to justify us in identifying the persons. As the name Zerah again appears in 1 Chron 6:26 in the genealogy of the Levite Asaph, so also the name Ethan occurs in the same genealogy, plainly showing that more than one Israelite bore this name.
The author of the Chronicle, too, has sufficiently guarded against the opinion that Zerah's sons Ethan and Heman are identical with the Levitical musicians who bear the same names, by tracing back in ch. 6 the family of those musicians to Levi, without calling them Ezrahites. (Note: The supposition of Ewald and Bertheau, that these two great singers of the tribe of Judah had been admitted into their guild by the Levitic musical schools, and on that account had been received also into their family, and so had been numbered with the tribe of Levi, is thus completely refuted, even were it at all possible that members of other tribes should have been received into the tribe of Levi.)
But to hold, with Movers, S. 237, that the recurrences of the same names in various races are contradictions, which are to be explained only on the supposition of genealogical combinations by various authors, will enter into the head of no sensible critic. We therefore believe the five persons mentioned in our verse to be actual descendants of the Judaean Zerah; but whether they were sons or grandsons, or still more distant descendants, cannot be determined. It is certainly very probable that Zimri was a son, if he be identical with the Zabdi of Josh 7:1; Ethan and Heman may have been later descendants of Zerah, if they were the wise men mentioned in Kings 5:11; but as to Calcol and Dara no further information is to be obtained. From vv. 7 and 8, where of the sons (b|neey ) of Zimri and Ethan only one man in each case is named, it is perfectly clear that in our genealogy only individuals, men who have become famous, are grouped together out of the whole posterity of Zerah. The plural b|neey in vv. 7 and 8, etc., even where only one son is mentioned, is used probably only in those cases where, out of a number of sons or descendants, one has gained for himself by some means a memorable name. This is true at least of Achan, v. 7, who, by laying hands on the accursed spoils of Jericho, had become notorious (Josh 7). Because Achan had thus troubled Israel (`aakar ), he is called here at once Achar. As to Carmi, vide on 1 Chron 4:1.
1 CHRONICLES. 2:9-41
The sons also of Hezron, that were born unto him; Jerahmeel, and Ram, and Chelubai.
The only name given here as that of a descendant of Ethan is Azariah, of whom nothing further is known, while the name recurs frequently.
Nothing more is said of the remaining sons of Zerah; they are merely set down as famous men of antiquity (Berth.). There follows in Verse 9-41. The family of Hezron, the first-born son of Pharez, which branches off in three lines, originating with his three sons respectively.
The three sons of Hezron are Jerahmeel, and Ram, and Chelubai; but the families springing from them are enumerated in a different order. First (vv. 10-17) we have the family of Ram, because King David is descended from him; then (vv. 18-24) the family of Chelubai or Caleb, from whose lineage came the illustrious Bezaleel; and finally (vv. 25-41), the posterity of the first-born, Jerahmeel.
Verse 9. low ( ) nowlad 'asher , what was born to him.
The passive stands impersonally instead of the more definite active, "to whom one bore," so that the following names are subordinated to it with 'eet . The third person singular Niph. occurs thus also in 1 Chron 3:4 and 26:6; the construction of Niph. with 'eet frequently (Gen 4:18; 21:5, and elsewhere). Ram is called, in the genealogy in Matt 1:3-4, Aram; comp. raam , Job 32:2, with 'araam , Gen 22:21. k|luwbay is called afterwards kaaleeb ; cf. on v. 18.
Verse 10-15. The family of Ram (vv. 10-12), traced down through six members of Jesse.-This genealogy is also to be found in Ruth. 1 Chron 4:19-21; but only here is Nahshon made more prominent than the others, by the addition, "prince of the sons of Judah." Nahshon was a prince of Judah at the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt (Num 1:7; 2:3; 7:12).
Now between him, a contemporary of Moses, and Pharez, who at the immigration of Jacob into Egypt was about fifteen years old, lies a period of 430 years, during which the Israelites remained in Egypt. For that time only three names-Hezron, Ram, and Amminidab-are mentioned, from which it is clear that several links must have been passed over. So also, from Nahshon to David, for a period of over 400 years, four generations- Salma, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse-are too few; and consequently here also the less famous ancestors of David are omitted. sal|maa' is called in Ruth 4:20-21, sal|maah and sal|mown . In vv. 13-15, seven sons and two daughters of Jesse, with those of their sons who became famous (vv. 16, 17), are enumerated. According to 1 Sam 17:12, Jesse had eight sons. This account, which agrees with that in 1 Sam 16:8-12, may be reconciled with the enumeration in our verse, on the supposition that one of the sons died without posterity. In 1 Sam 16:6ff. and 1 Chron 17:13, the names of the eldest three-Eliab, Abinadab, and Shammah-occur.
Besides yishay , we meet with the form 'iyshay (v. 13); and the name shamaah is only another form of shim|`aah , which is found in 2 Sam 13:3 and in 1 Chron 20:7, and is repeated in 2 Sam 13:32 and 21:21 in the Kethibh (shm`y). The names of the other three sons here mentioned (vv. 14 and 15) are met with nowhere else.
Verse 16-17. The sisters of David have become known through their heroic sons. Zeruiah is the mother of the heroes of the Davidic history, Abishai, Joab, and Asahel (cf. 1 Sam 26:6; 2 Sam 2:18; 3:39; 8:16, and elsewhere).
Their father is nowhere mentioned, "because their more famous mother challenged the greater attention" (Berth.). Abigail was, according to 2 Sam 17:25, the daughter of Nahash, a sister of Zeruiah, and so was only a halfsister of David, and was the mother of Amasa the captain of the host, so well known on account of his share in the conspiracy of Absalom; cf. Sam 17:25; 19:14, and 20:10. His father was Jether, or Jithra, the Ishmaelite, who in the Masoretic text of 2 Sam 17:25 is called, through a copyist's, error, hayis|r|'eeliy instead of hayish|m|`ee'liy ; see comm. on passage.
Verse 18-24. The family of Caleb.-That kaaleeb is merely a shortened form of k|luwbay , or a form of that word resulting from the friction of constant use, is so clear from the context, that all exegetes recognise it. We have first (vv. 18-20) a list of the descendants of Caleb by two wives, then descendants which the daughter of the Gileadite Machir bore to his father Hezron (vv. 21-23), and finally the sons whom Hezron's wife bore him after his death (v. 24). The grouping of these descendants of Hezron with the family of Caleb can only be accounted for by supposing that they had, through circumstances unknown to us, come into a more intimate connection with the family of Caleb than with the families of his brothers Ram and Jerahmeel. In vv. 42-55 follow some other lists of descendants of Caleb, which will be more fully considered when we come to these verses.
The first half of the 18th verse is obscure, and the text is probably corrupt. As the words stand at present, we must translate, "Caleb the son of Hezron begat with Azubah, a woman, and with Jerioth, and these are her (the one wife's) sons, Jesher," etc. baaneyhaa , filii ejus, suggests that only one wife of Caleb had been before mentioned; and, as appears from the "and Azubah died" of v. 19, Azubah is certainly meant. The construction 'eet howliyd , "he begat with," is, it is true, unusual, but is analogous to min chowliyd, 1 Chron 8:9, and is explained by the fact that howliyd may mean to cause to bear, to bring to bearing; cf. Isa 66:9: therefore properly it is, "he brought Azubah to bearing." The difficulty of the verse lies in the w|'et-y|riy`owt 'ishaah, for, according to the usual phraseology, we would have expected 'ish|tow instead of 'ishaah .
But 'ishaah may be, under the circumstances, to some extent justified by the supposition that Azubah is called indefinitely "woman," because Caleb had several wives. w|'et-y|riy`owt gives no suitable meaning.
The explanation of Kimchi, "with Azubah a woman, and with Jerioth," cannot be accepted, for only the sons of Azubah are hereafter mentioned; and the idea that the children of the other wives are not enumerated here because the list used by the chronicler was defective, is untenable: for after two wives had been named in the enumeration of the children of one of them, the mother must necessarily have been mentioned; and so, instead of baaneyhaa , we should have had `azuwbaah b|neey .
Hiller and J. H. Michaelis take w|'et as explicative, "with Azubah a woman, viz., with Jerioth;" but this is manifestly only the product of exegetical embarrassment. The text is plainly at fault, and the easiest conjecture is to read, with the Peschito and the Vulgate, 'et 'ish|tow instead of w|'et 'ishaah , "he begat with Azubah his wife, Jerioth (a daughter); and these are her sons." In that case 'ishaah would be added to `azuwbaah , to guard against `azuwbaah being taken for acc. obj. The names of the sons of Azubah, or of her daughter Jerioth, do not occur elsewhere.
