(C) The late date of Chronicles is finally put beyond all doubt by the linguistic peculiarities of the book. Excluding, of course, the passages drawn from earlier Scriptures, the Hebrew of Chronicles is of such a character that it is impossible to assign anything but a late post-exilic date for its composition. In every aspect of language—grammar and syntax and vocabulary—the diction exhibits the unmistakable characteristics of late Hebrew. It lies beyond the scope of the present volume to give details of the Hebrew, and reference may be made to the edition of Chronicles by Curtis and Madsen (International Critical Commentary), pp. 27 ff., where a list of 136 such peculiarities is given.
The style of Chronicles is disappointing. The Chronicler had some praiseworthy qualities as a narrator: he displays force and imagination in the treatment of the material, he knew how to add a graphic touch, and he was able to revise a story thoroughly while preserving its internal coherence (e.g. 1 Chronicles xxi.). But he had not the gift of choice language. In so late a work we could not hope to find the strength and purity which characterised Hebrew prose of the “golden age.” It must, however, be confessed that, judged even by the standard of its own age, the Hebrew of Chronicles is clumsy and displeasing in many ways.
From this cumulative evidence we infer that the Chronicler was certainly a post-exilic writer later than the period of Ezra–Nehemiah and in all probability not earlier than about 300–250 B.C. This is a valuable and definite conclusion, but it is important to observe that it does not fully answer the problem of the date of the present form of Chronicles. It remains to ask whether the text as it has reached us (the Masoretic Hebrew) is precisely the text which left the Chronicler’s hands, and, if not, what changes have been introduced. It is safe to say that the Hebrew text has been almost unchanged since about 150 A.D., but between that date and the time of the Chronicler is a long and sometimes stormy period. The subject, though in many ways important, is too intricate to be discussed here at length: a few remarks must suffice. (1) Like all other books of the Old Testament, Chronicles has suffered from the usual accidents of scribal errors in the course of transmission; but the changes due to this cause, being unintentional, are as a rule unimportant and can often be detected and corrected (see [§ 10], Text). (2) More serious are alterations made by revisers or scribes who were anxious to bring the narrative of Chronicles into conformity with that of Samuel and Kings. In the last two chapters of 2 Chronicles the Hebrew text can be compared with an old Greek Version (1 Esdras—see [§ 10,] Greek Versions), and the comparison indicates that changes of text (see notes on 2 Chronicles xxxv. 8, 15) and a harmonisation of Chronicles with Kings (see note on 2 Chronicles xxxvi. 5; compare also verse 15) have occurred in that brief section.
Except in these two chapters the old Greek Version has unfortunately perished, and for all the rest of Chronicles comparison can only be made with a much later Greek Version, which is a translation of a Hebrew text almost identical with the present, Masoretic, form. Even so, differences are found, notably a substantial passage deleted from the Hebrew in 2 Chronicles xxxv. 19 (where see note). It is a legitimate conjecture that, if the old Greek Version were extant throughout Chronicles, considerable variations between the earlier and the present text might be disclosed. (3) Finally, internal evidence suggests that a few passages are of a secondary character; i.e. interpolations by a writer later than the Chronicler: such perhaps are 1 Chronicles vi. 50–53; viii. 29–38; xxiv. 20–31; 2 Chronicles xv. 16–19 (see note verse 17); xx. 33 (see note xvii. 6); xxxi. 17–19.
Interpolations on a large scale are not likely to have been made. Yet it must be borne in mind that Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah were once a continuous work, and study of Ezra–Nehemiah shows that those writings have undergone a complex literary process, involving serious omissions and transpositions. This heightens the possibility that Chronicles also, before or after its separation from Ezra–Nehemiah, was treated with freedom. Thus “the recurrence of 1 Chronicles ix., Nehemiah xi. [both giving a list of inhabitants of Jerusalem] in a single work hardly looks like an original feature; like the more remarkable repetition of Ezra ii., Nehemiah vii., the feature seems to point to the combination of sources which were primarily distinct” (Cook, 1 Esdras, in Charles’ Apocrypha, p. 19, but see note on ix. 17). On the other hand the homogeneity of style and purpose in Chronicles tells strongly against the probability of large interpolations, and it is reasonable to believe that in the present text we have substantially the work produced by the Chronicler.
(II) Authorship. Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah contain no hint whatsoever of the name of their author, and external evidence fails us equally. From the contents and tone of the work we can infer with comparative certainty that he belonged to the Levitical order, and in all probability was a member of one of the Levitical guilds of musicians and singers (see, e.g. 2 Chronicles xxxiv. 12, note). His character and conceptions can also be discerned from the nature of his work. That he was a man of strong intellect and vivid imagination is shown by his qualities as a narrator (see p. [xxi]) and by the consistency and power with which the whole work has been designed and carried through (see below, §§ 5, 6, 8). Beyond this it is futile to conjecture.
§ 4. Contents
The books of Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah give a history of Israel and its ancestors from Adam down to the conclusion of Nehemiah’s activity on behalf of the post-exilic community in Jerusalem, circa 432 B.C. Of this history the two books of Chronicles cover the period from Adam to the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.[¹] Before giving a detailed analysis, it may be of advantage to call attention to certain outstanding features. Remark that (1) the traditions of the period from Adam to Saul’s death have been compressed into a series of genealogical lists which occupy chapters i.–ix.; (2) the rest of the two books gives an account of the history of Judah from the death of Saul down to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586, the fortunes of North Israel being ignored, except for some scornful allusions to its degeneracy in comparison with Judah and Jerusalem; (3) the keenest interest is displayed by the writer in all matters connected with the Levites, the Temple, and its worship, so that an extraordinary amount of space is allotted to those subjects—note especially 1 Chronicles vi., xxii.–xxix.; 2 Chronicles iii.–vii., xxix.–xxxi., xxxiv. 8–xxxv. 19.