Companion to the Bible

by E. P. Barrows

V. THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES.

20. These books, which originally constituted a single work, are called by the Hebrews: Words of the Days; that is, History of the Events of the Times, or Chronicles, as they were first called by Jerome. The Greek name Paraleipomena, things omitted, has its ground in the false supposition that they were designed to be supplementary to the books of Kings, whereas they constitute an independent work having its own plan and end. The author of the books of Kings doubtless looked forward to the future restoration of his nation; but the time for that joyous event was yet distant, and he could have no immediate reference to the wants of the returning exiles. His aim was simply to set forth the course of events under the Theocracy from Solomon to the captivity as an illustration of God's faithfulness in the fulfilment of both his promises and his threatenings. But the author of the books of Chronicles wrote, as all agree, during the process of the restoration. In addition to the common aim of all the historical writers, he had a particular object in view, which was to furnish the restored captives with such information as would be especially interesting and important to them, engaged as they were in the reëstablishment of the commonwealth. Hence we may naturally explain the peculiarities of these books as compared with the books of Kings.

(1.) The writer gives particular attention to the matter of genealogy. The first nine chapters are occupied with genealogical tables interspersed with short historical notices, which the author took, for the most part at least, from documents that have long since perished. To the returning exiles the lineage of their ancestors must have been a matter of general interest. A knowledge of the descent of the families of the different tribes would greatly facilitate the people in regaining their former inheritances. To the priests and Levites, especially, it was of the highest importance that they should be able to show their lineage, since upon this depended their right to minister in holy things. Ezra 2:61-63.

(2.) The books of Chronicles are very full on all that pertains to the temple service. The writer devotes, for example, eight chapters to an account of David's preparations for the erection of the temple, and of his elaborate arrangements for all the different parts of the service pertaining to the sanctuary. 1 Chron. chaps. 22-29. He gives a particular description of the solemn covenant made by the people with Jehovah under Asa's direction, 2 Chron. 15:1-15; of the reformatory labors and faith of Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. 19, 20; of Hezekiah, 2 Chron. chaps. 29-31; and he adds to the account of Josiah's efforts against the idolatrous practices of his day, a notice of his solemn observance of the passover, 2 Chron. 35:1-19.

(3.) He omits, on the other hand, the history of the kingdom of Israel, giving only a notice of its establishment, and of certain parts of its history which were connected with that of the kingdom of Judah. The apparent ground of this is, that the kingdom of the ten tribes furnished no example which could be available to the people in the work of reëstablishing the commonwealth. It is to be noticed, moreover, that he passes over in silence the adultery of David with its calamitous consequences, and the idolatry of Solomon. This is, perhaps, due to the brevity of the history before the division of the kingdom; for he does not spare the sins of the pious monarchs that followed. See 2 Chron. 16:7-12; 19:2; 32:25, 31; 35:21, 22.

21. In the Hebrew canon the books of Chronicles stand last in order. It is generally agreed that they were written, after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, by Ezra, who had all the qualifications for such a work. Whatever use he may have made of the earlier books of Samuel and Kings, it is plain that these were not his chief sources, for he records many things not found in them. He and the author of the books of Kings had access to the same public records, and each of them made such selections from them as suited his purposes. Hence the matter contained in the two works agrees in part, and is partly different. See above, Chap. 15, Nos. 7, 8.

22. That there are some discrepancies between the books of Samuel and Kings and the books of Chronicles, arising from errors in transcribing, is generally admitted. These relate, however, mainly to dates, and do not affect the general integrity of the works. But most of the disagreements between the earlier and later histories are only apparent, arising from their brevity, and from the fact that their authors frequently select from the same reign different events, the one passing by in silence what the other records; or that, where they record the same events, various accompanying circumstances are omitted.

An example of apparent error in transcription is 2 Sam. 24:13 compared with 1 Chron. 21:12; the former passage specifying seven years of famine, the latter three years. For other examples see 2 Sam. 8:4 compared with 1 Chron. 18:4; 2 Sam. 23:8 with 1 Chron. 11:11; 1 Kings 4:26 with 2 Chron. 9:25. We are not to infer, however, that all cases of apparent disagreement involve error in one or the other of the records. When the events of a whole campaign, for example, are crowded into single sentences, it is not surprising that the different narratives should contain seeming discrepancies which a full knowledge of the details would enable us to reconcile. The separate discussion of the difficulties presented by the books of Chronicles, as compared with the earlier histories, belongs to the commentator. It is sufficient to remark here, that independent parallel histories always exhibit, with substantial agreement, minor diversities which it is sometimes not easy to harmonize. It has not pleased God that in this respect the sacred narratives of either the Old or the New Testament should constitute an exception to the general rule. The parallel narratives of our Lord's life contain as many and as great diversities as those of the old Hebrew commonwealth. Though we may not always be able to show how these are to be brought into harmony, they constitute no valid objection to the authenticity of the histories in the one case any more than in the other.