§ 6. The Purpose and Method of the Chronicler
(1) In the time of the Chronicler the position of the orthodox party in Jerusalem, whose interests, civil and ecclesiastical, were bound up with the worship at the Temple on Mt Zion, was one of considerable difficulty. During the Greek period (from 330 B.C.) the mental horizon of the Jews in Jerusalem had expanded even more than under the Persian rule (538–330 B.C.). They were now able to realise their isolation and political insignificance, whilst at the same time the communities of Jews scattered in all the leading countries of the ancient world were rapidly growing in size, influence, and in cosmopolitan outlook. Even the religious supremacy of Jerusalem was threatened. We now know that there was an important Jewish Temple at Elephantine in Egypt, which the Jewish community there was eager to maintain. But far more serious was the Samaritan schism and the Temple to Jehovah erected by them on Mt Gerizim. We can well imagine that a rival Temple on Palestinian soil claiming, no doubt with some show of justice, that there were true Levitical families among its priests, that its ritual was correct and its observance of the Law every whit as sound as that in Jerusalem, was a matter of vital importance to the ecclesiastical orders at Jerusalem. Undoubtedly the feud was bitter in the Chronicler’s time; and there are strong grounds for holding that Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah were written with the immediate object of confuting the ecclesiastical pretensions of the Samaritans and of showing that in Jerusalem only ought men to worship. Certainly Chronicles is well adapted for that end. A virulent polemic would have been discounted as a party document. The Chronicler instead has skilfully retold the story of the past, so as to leave two main impressions. In the first place, by ignoring the affairs of the Northern Kingdom, save where he intimates that its people were religiously degenerate from the start (see 2 Chronicles xiii. 5–12), that they were grievously decimated by a great disaster (2 Chronicles xiii. 13–17), and that in general their attitude on the subject of mixed marriages was scandalously lax (see Ezra and Nehemiah), he has subtly but forcibly created the impression that the Samaritans were little better than “a heterogeneous mob of heathen.” Secondly and chiefly, his history was intended to show that Jerusalem, with its Temple on Mt Zion, is the one place which Jehovah has chosen, and where He has set His Name. There alone was His worship properly and legitimately established, and there alone can it still be carried on. Jerusalem too, like Samaria, had suffered for its sins, but the disaster of the exile, the break in the succession, was repaired, he argues, through the return from Babylonia of that company of Israelites of pure descent whom Ezra led back: the genealogies which are so noticeable a feature of Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah are given as irrefutable proof that the Jerusalem community of the Chronicler’s day—Levites and laymen—were the true and only descendants of the nation of old. It followed that by them alone could the worship of Jehovah be lawfully conducted.
It seems very probable that the Chronicler’s work was directed specifically against the Samaritans. But in any case it is undoubtedly true that the essential purpose of the book was to vindicate the religious supremacy of Jerusalem, and to exalt the honour and the privileges of its priesthood and its Temple.
(2) In seeking to achieve this aim, the Chronicler inevitably dwelt upon those aspects of life and thought in which he specially believed. Thus we may distinguish various features of his work which subserve the main purpose:
(a) He was anxious, for instance, to uphold the political supremacy of Jerusalem, no easy matter in his time. To Jews of the Greek period, fully aware of the pomp and power of heathen states, the achievements of even such national heroes as David or Solomon probably seemed pale and insignificant, as they are related in Samuel or Kings. In order to create a due sense of their importance, and to mitigate the depressing effects of Jerusalem’s present impotence, the Chronicler retold the glories of the past in terms commensurate with the notions of the present. To this end he idealised the great men of Israel. Thus the life of David is related by him as a career of almost unbroken success and of consistent piety. Thus also the sacrifices offered by Solomon at the dedication of the Temple are said to have been on a scale that might well have astonished Alexander the Great.
(b) Chiefly, however, the Chronicler was concerned with the religious pre-eminence of Jerusalem. He delights therefore in magnifying to the full the glories of the Temple, its ritual and its officers. It is quite clear that his interest in this theme is far wider than any immediate polemical aim, and the subject deserves careful attention. When he describes the Temple of Solomon in terms of surpassing splendour, he is not merely seeking to cast down the pride of Samaritan rivals, he is also gratifying the longings of his own heart—how poor in comparison the outward form of the Temple he himself served so faithfully! Perhaps also he hoped thereby to excite his own love for its well-being among the less ardent of his brethren. More important was the question of ritual and the Law. We have already said (p. [xx]) that the Chronicler lived at a time when the Pentateuch had for a long while existed in its final form, when the ritual and Law of Israel were regulated in accordance with its fully elaborated precepts; the whole complex system being supposed to have been imparted to Israel by Moses. Now, when the Chronicler and others like him turned to the historical records of their people, the books of Samuel and Kings, they found many things which must have sorely puzzled them. For those records constantly relate events in ways which run counter to the provisions of the completed Pentateuch, sometimes ignoring, sometimes contradicting and breaking, its laws and practices. It is utterly unlikely that he and his fellows were aware that those books reflect the customs of an earlier period; so that in altering their narrative (as he does) he was not conscious of falsifying history. Even if he was, we must not judge his conduct by the opinions of our own time, but remember that “he lived in an age when certain accepted theories were regarded as more authentic than recorded facts” (Kent, Student’s O.T. vol. ii. 23). It is fair, however, to believe that in the inconsistencies of the older histories with the observances of his own day he saw only an astonishing ignorance or carelessness in matters of the Law on the part of the older writers—a state of affairs which called loudly for correction. For the good name of David and Solomon, for the honour of the pious Kings of Judah, as well as for the edification of his contemporaries (and, maybe, for the confusion of the Samaritans), such flagrant blemishes had to be removed. And in Chronicles he has produced a thorough revision of the history of Judah in accordance with the principles and provisions of the completed Pentateuch. Throughout the entire work this aim is consistently pursued. It must be therefore considered a main feature of the Chronicler’s purpose. The alterations of the text of Samuel–Kings which he has made on this account will be so frequently pointed out in the notes that here one simple example will suffice. In 2 Samuel viii. 18 it is said, “And the sons of David were priests.” Since in the Chronicler’s time it was unthinkable that any could be priests save members of Levitical families, this statement was corrected to read, “And the sons of David were chief about the king” (1 Chronicles xviii. 17). Finally, in the officials of the Temple—Priests and Levites—the Chronicler manifests the deepest interest. Throughout his narrative he is vigilant to exalt the honour and privileges of those classes. In particular, he brings the guilds of Levitical singers into prominence so frequently that it is generally supposed he was himself a member of that order of Levites.
These remarks on the principal features of the book indicate in general the purpose and method of the Chronicler. Yet in a sense they do so externally, and behind all else, as the animating force, there lies the Chronicler’s religious faith, his zeal for God. That truly is his ultimate motive; but it will be convenient to reserve what may be said concerning it until a later stage (§ 8).