§ 7. The Historical Value of Chronicles
Until recent times the burning question in the exposition of Chronicles has been the problem of reconciling its statements with those in Samuel–Kings, finding explanations for the inconsistencies, and combining the additional matter given in Chronicles so as to form one harmonious narrative. So baffling was the task that even the Talmudists, masters in the arts of subtle exegesis, doubted the accuracy of Chronicles, and were inclined to treat it, not as an authority for the history, but as a book for homiletic interpretation (see references in the Jewish Encyclopedia iv. 60). As soon as the character and purpose of the book, the circumstances and opinions of the writer, are understood, the demand for harmonising the variant accounts at all costs is seen to be mistaken, and the exposition of Chronicles is thereby freed from a burden by which it has been sorely hampered. The question of the historical value of its narratives remains one of great importance, but on literary and scientific, not on religious, grounds (compare p. [xxx]).
It will make for clearness if we approach the subject by considering first (A) the direct historical value of Chronicles, i.e. its worth as a history of Judah; and secondly (B) its indirect historical value as a work of the period to which we have assigned its composition, 300–250 B.C. Under (A) our discussion may conveniently be divided into a consideration of: (I) those parts which reproduce or are apparently based on Samuel–Kings; (II) the material wholly or apparently independent of canonical Scripture.
A.
Direct Value.
(I) If the Chronicler’s version of the history was to gain acceptance at all, it was necessary to make the older well-known histories the basis of his work. And indeed he himself no doubt conceived his version not as contradictory of the older narratives but only as a more careful account of the history of Judah, paying adequate attention to the religious affairs in which he was specially interested. Hence, wherever the text of Samuel and Kings was suitable for his purpose he reproduced it exactly[¹]: an example is 2 Chronicles xviii. 3–34 = 1 Kings xviii. 4–35. The historical value of passages which are merely transcriptions must be discussed not here but in their original setting: obviously their value is that which they possess there—neither more nor less. We proceed therefore to consider the changes introduced by the Chronicler in using canonical sources. They are of various kinds:
[¹] It must not be assumed that where the text of Chronicles and Samuel–Kings now coincides, it has done so always. That conclusion is only generally true. Sometimes, it seems, the original text of Chronicles was altered to conform more closely with Kings, and vice versa the present text of Kings is sometimes the result of assimilation to Chronicles Unfortunately the evidence of the extant Greek versions (§ 10) is quite insufficient to tell us how far the present text of Chronicles has been modified by this assimilating tendency, except in the last two chapters of 2 Chronicles where the evidence of the Greek is peculiarly full. It is clear, however, that some by no means unimportant changes have taken place in the course of transmission: see [§ 10], and the remarks on p. [xxii].
(i) A great number of minor alterations have been made, conforming the older material to the Chronicler’s point of view. A few instances may be given: 2 Samuel v. 21, “And [the Philistines] left their images there, and David and his men took them away” = 1 Chronicles xiv. 12, “And [the Philistines] left their gods there, and David gave commandment, and they were burned with fire.” Again, 2 Samuel xxiv. 1, “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel” = 1 Chronicles xxi. 1, “And Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.” Again, 1 Kings ix. 12, “The cities which Solomon had given him (Huram)” = 2 Chronicles viii. 2, “The cities which Huram had given to Solomon.” Compare further 2 Samuel viii. 18 = 1 Chronicles xviii. 17 (quoted above, p. xli f.); 2 Samuel vi. 12 = 1 Chronicles xiii. 13; 2 Samuel xxiv. 24 = 1 Chronicles xxi. 25.
(ii) In some instances the alterations are so many or of so radical a nature that the whole tenour of the passage has been transformed—e.g. the conspiracy against Athaliah which resulted in the coronation of the youthful king Joash (2 Kings xi.) is rewritten (2 Chronicles xxiii.) to agree with the usages of the Temple in the Chronicler’s time. Similarly in the passage which follows (2 Chronicles xxiv. 4–14), which is certainly based on 2 Kings xii. 4–16, only some 30 words of the original have been kept, so freely has it been revised. Again, the account of the destruction of Jehoshaphat’s fleet (1 Kings xxii. 48 f.) is remarkably altered in 2 Chronicles xx. 35–37. Compare further 1 Chronicles xv. 25–28 = 2 Samuel vi. 12–15; 2 Chronicles xxii. 7–9 = 2 Kings ix. 27, 28; 2 Chronicles xxxii. 1–23 = 2 Kings xviii. 13–xix. 37 (a free abridgment).
(iii) Another noteworthy feature in the Chronicler’s treatment of the canonical sources is his omissions. These call for mention here because they are not only significant of his feelings and principles, but they also have an immense effect on the impression conveyed by his narrative as compared with that of his source. Not a word, for instance, is said that would detract from the picture of David as the man after God’s heart and the ideal monarch of Israel. The perils of his youth, Saul’s enmity and the long struggle against Ishbosheth are omitted[¹]. His murder of Uriah and the disastrous rebellion of Absalom are ignored; but the result is a David very different from the great yet sometimes erring monarch depicted in Samuel (see the head-note to 1 Chronicles xxviii.). Another significant omission is 2 Kings xviii. 14–16, Hezekiah’s payment of tribute to Babylonia, a tradition which doubtless seemed to the Chronicler a sign of weakness and lack of faith incredible in a king so pious and successful. Above all, we notice the omission of the affairs of the Northern Kingdom, except for a few derogatory notices. The consequence is that if Chronicles stood alone, our conception of the relative importance of Judah as compared with Israel would be very far removed from the actual facts. It is a simple matter to see how imperative it is that the impression given by Chronicles should here be corrected by the records in Kings, and the student will find it instructive to consider the point with some care.
[¹] Such omissions are very skilfully managed by the Chronicler. Even so, they generally entail some abrupt transition or obscurity, as in the present instance for which see the note on 1 Chronicles xi. 1. Here the cause of the obscurity can be shown by direct comparison of the earlier history in Samuel. Mark how usefully Chronicles thus demonstrates the legitimacy of the argument that similar difficulties elsewhere in the Old Testament are perhaps due to a similar cause, although the earlier source may not be extant to prove that the conjecture is correct.
The conclusions to be drawn from the above are clear. First, in passages of the type instanced in (ii) above, where the differences between Kings and Chronicles are considerable and not confined to changes made on transparently religious grounds, the possibility that we have to do with a variant form of the tradition in Kings should be carefully considered. If there be any such distinct traditions, even though they are few or in a late stage of development, they are of high value, for they may be as worthy of consideration as the form in Kings. Moreover a slight variation in a tradition may occasionally suffice to indicate the existence of a different standpoint towards an important topic or period in the history. But in the majority of all cases included under this heading (I) it appears that the changes in the narratives were arbitrarily made in consequence of the standpoint, beliefs, and purpose (§§ 1 and 6) of the Chronicler, and they can make no claim to rest on historical facts. For the detailed arguments upon which this general conclusion is based, the reader is referred to the notes on the text.
(II) The additional matter of Chronicles includes a variety of subjects. These may be roughly but conveniently summarised under the following headings—(1) genealogical lists (1 Chronicles ii.–ix., xxiii.–xxvii., etc.); (2) topographical and other archaeological notices (e.g. 1 Chronicles xi. 41–47; 2 Chronicles xvii. 7–10, xix. 4–11, xxvi. 6, 49, xxxii. 30, xxxiii. 14, and notably the organisation of the Levites, 1 Chronicles xxiii., xxiv., and details regarding the building of Solomon’s Temple, e.g. 2 Chronicles ii.–iv., passim); (3) letters and speeches (1 Chronicles xvi. 8–36, xxii. 6–19, xxviii. 2–10, xxix. 1–20; 2 Chronicles xv. 1–7, xvi. 7–10, xxi. 12–15); (4) national events, especially religious affairs and wars (e.g. 1 Chronicles iv. 34–43, v. 6, xxiii. ff.; 2 Chronicles xvii. 7–10, xix. 4–11, xxix. 3–xxx. 27), such topics being sometimes related in the style of (5) Midrashim—i.e. edifying tales describing marvellous deliverances from foes and splendid religious ceremonies (2 Chronicles xiii. 3–20, xiv. 9–15, xxx. 13–27, and especially xx. 1–30[¹]). If, as Torrey contends, the whole of this is simply the product of the Chronicler’s imagination working upon the canonical sources only and freely interpreting events in accordance with his own convictions, then, we must frankly admit, its historical value as a record of the past it purports to describe is nil. If, however, according to the view taken in this volume (see [§ 5]), much of this material is drawn from a body of tradition, oral and written, current in the Jerusalem of the Chronicler’s day, and not represented in canonical writings, the question of historical value is still open. Our task, then, is to consider whether among the extra-canonical traditions some genuine historical facts may have been preserved. The problem is not easy, and, as yet, it does not admit of so exact and definite a reply as we should like to give. Obviously the answer requires a thorough consideration of each item of the new material, a task which would far exceed the scope of this introduction. There are, however, some general observations which throw light upon the problem. These we shall give here, reserving the discussion of individual passages for the notes. Taking the subjects enumerated above in order, we have:
[¹] The subjects thus classified are not, of course, mutually exclusive—thus a letter or speech and statements of alleged historical events will frequently be a part of the contents of some midrashic passage.
(1) The new genealogical lists, which are so prominent a feature of Chronicles. Some of these lists are certainly not trustworthy records of pre-exilic times[¹]. But others, e.g. parts of the Calebite and Levitical genealogies, probably embody facts concerning the kinships and distribution of various South Judean families in pre-exilic and exilic times, and furnish valuable evidence of a northward movement (see S. A. Cook, 1 Esdras, p. 12 in Charles’s Apocrypha, or his articles on Caleb, Judah, Levites in Encyclopedia Britannica¹¹). It is certain that in post-exilic Jerusalem a considerable part of the population were descendants of these south Judean clans. Surely it would be surprising if no valid traditions of their relationships, their movements and fortunes, had been preserved amongst them. There is therefore good reason for holding that some historical information (e.g. 1 Chronicles iv. 34–43) may be found in these lists, and it is possible that a close study of certain of the genealogies will yield most valuable light on some of the main questions of Old Testament history and literature. Unfortunately the study of the intricate problems involved is not yet sufficiently advanced to permit conclusions which meet with general acceptance.
[¹] On the other hand they may have historical value as regards the families of Judah and Jerusalem in or about the Chronicler’s own generation—a point, however, which properly falls to be discussed under B below.
(2) Much of the topographical and archaeological information scattered here and there in the books of Chronicles does not inspire confidence, but part may rest on old tradition; compare the headnote to 1 Chronicles xii. 1–22. Many of the references in chapters i.–ix. (e.g. vii. 24, viii. 12, etc.) to Judean townships, whether explicitly mentioned (e.g. 1 Chronicles vi. 54 ff.), or lightly disguised in the genealogical tables (e.g. 1 Chronicles ii. 18 ff., 50 ff.), are valuable not only for information regarding the relationship of Jewish families and movements of southern peoples, Edomites and Arabians (see (1) above, and the note on 1 Chronicles ii. 42), but also as evidence of the extent (small indeed!) of the territory occupied by the post-exilic Jewish community (compare Hölscher, Palästina, pp. 18–23, 26–31). It is further plausibly suggested that notices of certain tribes of the Northern Kingdom (e.g. Ephraim and Manasseh) may be regarded as indications of the extension of Judaism in Samaria and Galilee about the Chronicler’s period (see note on 2 Chronicles xv. 9). The Chronicler was singularly interested in building operations (see, e.g. 2 Chronicles xxvi. 9, xxxii. 30, xxxiii. 14) and some of his references to the building of fortified townships in Judea (2 Chronicles xi. 5 ff., xiv. 6, xvi. 1–6, xvii. 12) and to the origin of buildings and gates in Jerusalem may be correct (see 2 Chronicles xxvi. 5–10, note).
(3) As regards the letters and speeches which are ascribed by the Chronicler to various kings and prophets—e.g. David, Elijah, Azariah, etc.—these cannot be deemed authentic. For example, the great song of praise attributed to David in 1 Chronicles xvi. 7 ff. is wholly composed of quotations from Psalms of late date. Such speeches or letters are examples of a device constantly and legitimately employed by ancient historians as a method of imparting vividness and spirit to their narrative. The letters and speeches represent simply what ought in the historian’s opinion to have been written or spoken. The Greek historian, Thucydides, carefully states the practice: “I have,” he writes, “put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them....” (Thucydides i. 22)[¹].
[¹] The practice is not peculiar to Chronicles, and these remarks are generally true of the correspondence between Solomon and Hiram and the long prayer of Solomon, found in 1 Kings v. 2–9, viii. 22–50, and transcribed (with some expansions) in 2 Chronicles ii. 3–16, vi. 12–42.
(4) National events, such as religious ceremonies (e.g. Hezekiah’s Passover, 2 Chronicles xxix.–xxxi.) and wars (e.g. 2 Chronicles xx. 1–30) constitute as a rule the subject-matter of (5) the pious midrashic passages; so that (4) and (5) may conveniently be treated together. Midrash is not serious history, and very probably was not intended to be regarded as such even by its author. It is earnest moral and religious teaching presented in a quasi-historical dress. In all these passages the form of the tale is unhistorical, and all midrashic features, such as the incredibly and often impossibly large numbers given in Chronicles, must without hesitation be set aside; but it does not follow that the tale has no historical foundation whatever, that the events around which it was written were originally unreliable. In an ancient writing mythical features do not afford a proper ground for rejecting a tale as historically worthless—a fact which requires to be emphasised. An interesting example is found in the extraordinary legends which attached themselves to the life of Alexander the Great and rapidly spread throughout Europe and Asia (see Encyclopedia Britannica¹¹ vol. i. pp. 550 f.).
Perhaps the most striking instance in Chronicles is the amazing and bloodless victory vouchsafed to Jehoshaphat over certain Bedouin tribes who invaded Judah from the desert by the southern end of the Dead Sea (2 Chronicles xx. 1–30, where see notes). As told in Chronicles, the story is a Midrash, preaching the duty of trust in God and of obedience to His will at all hazards; but it is evident that the moral and religious form of the story has been built on and around a tradition of a desert raid on Judah. Now this nucleus of the tale may easily rest on historical fact. Fierce but undisciplined invaders, advancing from the desert through the difficult country of south Judah, a land of cliffs ravines and caves, might be sorely harassed by the guerilla attacks of the shepherd population of that region, and finally broken up by the outbreak of internal dissensions, before the main Judean army from Jerusalem had arrived to oppose their advance in force. Such an event would quickly fade from the military recollections of Jerusalem, but might be long perpetuated as a local tradition among the shepherd class of the district where the victory was won. Thus we should have, on the one hand, a reason for its non-appearance in the earlier strata of memories embodied in Kings. On the other hand, when the South Judean families had moved northward to Jerusalem in the exilic and post-exilic days, the story would gain currency, and one can easily see how suitable it was for development into just such a religious narrative as we find in Chronicles. The raid, then, is probably a genuine tradition, but, even so, a word of caution is required. It is necessary still to consider the question whether the story is correctly associated with the time of Jehoshaphat. Perhaps, yes; but possibly several such raids took place, and the memories of them may have been confused and combined into one; or, again, the names of the original foes may have been changed into those of more recent opponents. Other important passages of this type are discussed in the notes on 2 Chronicles xiii. 3–20, xiv. 9–15, xxxiii. 11–13.
One point calls for special mention. In the later chapters of 2 Chronicles the Chronicler’s account of the history, particularly as regards the relations of the Judean kingdom with the Edomites and Arabians to the south, is characterised by a freshness and independence which suggests that he was here relying on definite and valuable traditions (see notes pp. 257 f., 262, 280 f., 286 f., 292).
These results do not provide the complete material for an estimate of the historical value of Chronicles. To them must first be added the conclusions noted below, under B.
B.
Indirect Value.
Although the Chronicler says not one word directly of his own times, indirectly his work gives us much useful information concerning that obscure period. In very many ways Chronicles is a mirror reflecting the thoughts, hopes, and circumstances of the orthodox community in Jerusalem, circa 300–250 B.C. Indirect and unconscious though the evidence may be, it is still precious, for our knowledge of the period is so slight that all fragments of information are most welcome.
Some of the genealogical lists yield information regarding the post-exilic population of Judah and Jerusalem. Certain references (see p. [xlviii]) perhaps imply the extension of Judaism in Palestine. From the descriptions of the Temple and its organisation, facts can be gleaned regarding the Temple of the Chronicler’s own age. Thus in 1 Chronicles xxiii ff. where the Chronicler ascribes to David (unhistorically, see notes pp. 51 f., 136, 145) the origination of the Levitical arrangements in the Temple, he gives an elaborate description of their organisation; and therein we can see a picture of the complex system and duties of the Priests and the Levites (with the subordinate classes of doorkeepers and singers) as these were finally determined in the late post-exilic Temple. Some interesting inferences can be drawn from Chronicles regarding the instruction of the people in matters of religion. When in 2 Chronicles xvii. 7–9 arrangements for teaching the Law throughout Judah are said to have been instituted by Jehoshaphat, we may be sure that some such system was in vogue in the Chronicler’s day, or, at the very least, that the Chronicler and his fellow-Levites were anxious to see it fully carried out. Perhaps schools for instructing the people had already been established in Jerusalem, and it was desired to extend them throughout the countryside as well. Significant in the same connection is the remark ascribed to Azariah the prophet (2 Chronicles xv. 3): “Now for long seasons Israel hath been without the true God and without a teaching priest and without law” (compare 2 Chronicles xxxv. 3). Similarly from 2 Chronicles xix. 4–11 we may infer the existence of, or the desire to establish, a careful system of courts of justice under the control of the Levitical order. Again, Chronicles contributes to our knowledge of the evolution of public worship. The subject is so obscure, the details so unknown, that we may be grateful for anything which helps us to discern even broad stages in the development. Undoubtedly those flagrant abuses of worship which called forth the denunciations of Isaiah and Jeremiah had passed away. One gathers that public worship in the Temple had become an affair of truly religious significance. The prayer of Solomon is repeated from Kings, but in addition the Chronicler ascribes similar utterances of praise, supplication, and thanksgiving to David and Hezekiah, and the good kings (especially Hezekiah and Josiah) are represented as zealously active in ordering and arranging for great services of worship which the people were to attend. All this, of course, is related of the past, but from it we may infer facts of the Chroniclers present. We infer, then, a community accustomed to gather constantly at the Temple for the worship of their God. The main elements of public worship can be traced. There was, of course, the ancient ritual of animal sacrifice, hallowed for the Jews by its vast antiquity, and grown the more impressive in proportion as the literalism of the past was forgotten and men felt more vividly that the offering was symbolic of things of the spirit—of the mystery of life, of forgiveness, and of recognition that all things are the gift of God. Undoubtedly there was public prayer. It is hardly possible to read the prayers of the great kings in Chronicles and not feel that they echo a liturgy of prayer—for the individual and for the nation. There was a great and impressive service of song and of music, compare 2 Chronicles v. 12, 13: that is writ large indeed on the pages of Chronicles; and 1 Chronicles xvi. 8 ff. is enough to tell us that the Psalter was the book of praise. We have a sufficient hint, too, that to the songs at least, if not to the prayers also, the people were expected to respond—“And all the people said, Amen, and praised the Lord” (2 Chronicles xvi. 36). Probably arrangements were in vogue for regular reading of the Law, although Chronicles alone would hardly suffice to establish the point (2 Chronicles xxxiv. 31 is insufficient evidence). Even if it be thought that this picture represents rather the ideals of the Levites than the actual attainments of the community, it is still important that such a standard of worship was conceived by the priests and set before the people. One recalls the words of the great prophet of exilic or post-exilic times who wrote: “for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples” (Isaiah lvi. 7). His was a vision of the Temple as the centre of the whole world’s worship. To the Chronicler it had at least become a true “house of prayer” for Israel. Other details might be mentioned, but these will suffice to indicate the light which Chronicles throws upon the conditions of the post-exilic community.
Much more important, however, is the insight we gain into the methods and principles, the ideals and the ideas which prevailed in Temple circles in Jerusalem during the third century B.C. Chronicles, like all distinctive books, is necessarily eloquent of its author’s mind and character. Now the Chronicler was a Levite of the Levites, and no doubt typical of his class at this period. But we know that this period was of the highest importance in the formation of the Old Testament, and it was precisely at the hands of the orthodox Levitical circles that many books of the Jewish Scriptures, especially the Laws, the Histories, and the Psalms, underwent the revision which brought them approximately to their present form. It is therefore extremely valuable that we should be able to study the psychological characteristics of a typical Levite of that age. From this point of view hardly any part of Chronicles is without significance. Thus the midrashic stories, whatever their value otherwise, at least reveal a great deal regarding the mental and moral outlook of the writer and his contemporaries.
“Chronicles,” it has been said (Bennett, Expositor’s Bible, p. 20), “is an object-lesson in ancient historical composition.” But it ought also to teach us that history is something more than the record of occurrences. Facts are fundamental, but of profound importance also is the attitude in which we approach them.
To sum up the whole matter of this section. Compared with Samuel–Kings, Chronicles is of little or no value as a record of the history of the Judean kingdom. Where it differs from those books, in almost all cases the earlier account is the more accurate and trustworthy. In what Chronicles adds, there may sometimes be found traditional developments of genuine historical facts. Even if they should prove to be few, it is possible that there may be among them some points of high importance for our understanding of the Old Testament records. Finally, as a product of the Greek period, Chronicles is very valuable in illustrating the methods, ideals, and temperament of the Levitical classes of Jerusalem about that time.
These results are disappointing only if we insist on treating Chronicles as a manual of early Judean history instead of as a remarkable and in some ways unique religious work.