(2) A Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah (cited for Jotham, Josiah, and Jehoiakim; 2 Chronicles xxvii. 7, xxxv. 27, xxxvi. 8).
(3) A Book of the Kings of Israel (cited for genealogies, 1 Chronicles xix. 1; for the reign of Jehoshaphat, 2 Chronicles xx. 24; and for Manasseh, 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 18).
(4) A Midrash[¹] of the Book of Kings (for the reign of Joash, 2 Chronicles xxiv. 27).
[¹] The noun Midrash is derived from a verb meaning to search out, explore. The word occurs only in 2 Chronicles xiii. 22, xxiv. 27 in the Old Testament but is very common as a description of many works of later Jewish literature. A Midrash may be defined as an imaginative adaptation of an idea suggested by Scripture, especially a homiletic exposition or an edifying religious story. In midrashic writings “numbers are multiplied, all the details assume huger and more exalted proportions, right is always richly rewarded and wickedness signally punished, miracles are common, and prophets and kings deliver majestic, spiritual addresses, embodying the best doctrines of later Judaism” (Kent, Student’s O.T. II. p. 20). Several of the narratives in Chronicles partake of this character. For later and more obvious examples, compare the stories of Tobit and Susanna in the Apocrypha.
This great array of authorities dwindles to small proportions on inspection. Of the fifteen given under A, numbers 13, 14 are uncertain but of very small importance, whilst number 15 is also unknown: it is not the canonical book of Lamentations (see the note on 2 Chronicles xxxv. 25). The rest, numbers 1–12, almost certainly were not independent works, but simply sections of some comprehensive work (see especially numbers 10 and 12), it being the custom among the Jews to refer to the sections of a large work by means of distinctive titles—compare Romans xi. 2, “Know ye not what the Scripture saith in Elijah.” Thus some of these titles, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, may refer simply to passages in the canonical books of Samuel and Kings, numbers 11 and 12 to Isaiah xxxvi.–xxxix. = 2 Kings xviii. 13–xx. 19. But the others (and perhaps some also of those just mentioned) in all probability denote sections of a large history of a more or less midrashic character; and it is this work apparently which is meant by the titles given under B. To these we now turn. It is generally admitted that all four titles mentioned in B denote one and the same work, a comprehensive history of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. This work was not our canonical books of Kings, for it is quoted as containing material not found in those books. Still less was it any of the sources referred to in Kings: there is not the faintest probability that any of the new material in Chronicles was derived directly from those very old sources. The question therefore is whether in this general work to which the Chronicler appeals he had a source independent or semi-independent of Kings. Opinion is divided. Some scholars think that it was essentially dependent on the canonical Kings, merely “a reconstructed history, embellished with marvellous tales of divine interposition and prophetic activity.” Others maintain that this midrashic history had its roots not only in canonical Kings but also in traditions partly or wholly independent of Kings. The latter opinion is here preferred, but the reasons for adopting it will be best seen if we first state and consider two sharply opposing views put forward by recent writers.
On the one side is Torrey (Ezra Studies, 1910) who argues that the Chronicler had no source at all other than the canonical books—all else was the product of his imaginative skill. He describes this supposed midrashic history of Judah and Israel as “a phantom source, of which the internal evidence is absolutely lacking, and the external evidence is limited to the Chronicler’s transparent parading of authorities.” The strength of Torrey’s contention lies in the fact that almost all the additional matter in Chronicles is written in one and the same distinctive style. That style has certain unmistakable peculiarities. Thus Driver in the Encyclopedia Britannica s.v. Chronicles, col. 772, writes, “It is not merely that the style of the Chronicler presents characteristically late linguistic novelties ... but it has also a number of special mannerisms.... So constant are [these marks] that there is hardly a single sentence, not excerpted from Samuel or Kings, in which they are not discernible.” On the other side we have to consider the attitude adopted in the commentaries of Benzinger (1901) and Kittel (1902), following up a suggestion made by Büchler in 1899. These scholars not only believe that non-canonical sources supplied much of the new material of Chronicles, but they have attempted to analyse that material minutely into various contributory elements. According to their view the Chronicler was essentially a compiler, following his sources closely and showing such little independence as he exercised chiefly in those verses and passages where the affairs and interests of the Levites are set forth. In the opinion of the present writer that is not a satisfactory account of the part played by the Chronicler. It does not make sufficient allowance for the singular homogeneity of style and purpose throughout the book. Torrey’s work is of value as a warning against the danger and difficulty of the analysis which Benzinger and Kittel have essayed. Frequently the points which are adduced as evidence for distinction of sources are too few or too subjective to provide adequate ground for the analysis—see the detailed examination of the Hebrew provided in the edition by Curtis. But, whilst it should be admitted that this uniformity of style carries great weight and must receive careful consideration, it does not, we think, follow that Torrey’s sweeping conclusion is correct, and that behind the non-canonical passages there is nothing save the imagination of the Chronicler. To begin with, if that were true, the Chronicler would be unparalleled amongst ancient historians. The originality of ancient chroniclers was shown in the manner in which they combined, modified, and embellished the nucleus given by tradition, but they did not invent de novo to the extent required by this theory. Even if that be an over-statement, we can at least assert that they did not shut themselves up to their own imagination, if any traditions relating to their subject were current. On the contrary, they made use of all such available material, good or bad. And it is quite incredible that historical interest in Jerusalem regarding the old days of the Kingdom was confined to the compilation of Kings until suddenly the Chronicler produced this startlingly different account. There is very strong probability that the version given in Chronicles has a long chain of antecedents behind it. For consider, further, the general situation. The vicissitudes of time and fortune had caused great changes in the population of Jerusalem, but none that made absolutely impossible the continuance of traditions not represented or only partially represented by the narratives crystallised in Kings. Thus “we may safely assume that the overthrow of Edom (2 Chronicles xxv. 5–13) and the leprosy of Uzziah (2 Chronicles xxvi. 16–23) were once told more fully than in the brief verses of 2 Kings xiv. 7, xv. 5. We may surely allow links between the impression left upon tradition by these events and the stories that have been preserved by Chronicles” (S. A. Cook, in the Journal of Theological Studies, xii. 470). It is now generally recognised that the depopulation of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. was not nearly so complete as was once thought, and considerable continuity of tradition may have been maintained. Moreover, the influx of South Judean families in the exilic and post-exilic times must have meant an extension of popular tales concerning Judean affairs. It is therefore significant that the South Judean “strain” is a marked feature in the Chronicler’s history. Again, it is practically certain that Levitical predecessors of the Chronicler felt somewhat the same interest as he displays in the origins of their order and institutions. Are we to suppose that they made no attempts to gratify their curiosity, or to find historical grounds for their claims? Surely they would seize with interest on any and all current traditions, and would be constantly collating them with the well-known version in Kings, adding whatever they could to the total, and no doubt tending to retell the whole—at least the popular and edifying portions of the narrative—in terms more agreeable to the ideas and practices of their own time. We cannot suppose that the Chronicler was the first and only Levite who attempted to satisfy the obvious need ([§ 6]) for an orthodox ecclesiastical version of Judean history. Features of the genealogies, and in particular the Levitical data, suggest the existence of statistical records, if of nothing more. One further small but interesting point deserves mention. In 1 Chronicles iv. 9, vii. 23, xii. 18 there are sayings which cannot possibly originate with the Chronicler, for they are written in an archaic style utterly foreign to his manner of speech. Of these xii. 18 is poetical in form, while the other two are sentences of a type made familiar to us by early passages in Genesis. These verses, then, are certainly not the invention of the Chronicler, and, even if they are only isolated fragments, their existence is at least significant. In fine, the natural supposition is that in post-exilic Jerusalem there were various traditions which were drawn partly, but not exclusively, from the particular recension of history preserved in Kings, and which continued to develop in form and perhaps in content after the “Kings” recension was relatively fixed. Whether these developments of traditions, canonical and otherwise, preserve any genuine history or not ([§ 7]), their existence in popular and priestly circles of the Chronicler’s time is, we think, almost certain; and it is quite certain that, if they were in existence, the Chronicler would utilise them. On this view, then, the sources of the Chronicler were:
(a) The canonical books.
(b) Variant forms of a few narratives in Kings; traditions of South Judean origin, recording movements of population and hostilities with southern tribes; popular midrashic tales; family statistics and genealogies, particularly of the Priests and Levites; records or traditions relating to the Temple, the fortifications of Jerusalem, and the repair of certain Judean towns—some of this material being really independent of the traditions in Kings.
The problem raised by the stylistic uniformity of the new passages in Chronicles must now be considered. Probably the material indicated in (b) above may at times have crystallised into definite midrashic writings. (Thus, when the Chronicler speaks of the “History of the Kings of Judah and Israel,” we may believe that he refers to some such document, one that was either extant in his own age or was generally known to have existed.) Probably, however, it was also to a large extent in a fluid oral condition—matter of common knowledge and of common talk in Levitical circles. Certainly it is legitimate to think that with this material, written or oral or both, the Chronicler was intensely familiar; and that he could easily have related it in his own words. We may surmise that his procedure was somewhat as follows: He made the well-known narrative of Samuel–Kings the basis of his version, altering its words as little as possible, yet, if necessary, exercising great freedom, so as to make it fully orthodox in accordance with the ecclesiastical standards of his time. Into this groundwork he wove with admirable skill new material of fact and narrative, drawn from the sources set forth in (b) above; and all this new material he selected, revised, and related in such a fashion as might best serve the very definite religious, moral, and ecclesiastical ends ([§ 6]) which his history was designed to meet. It passed, in fact, freely and effectively through the medium of his mind; so that it appears, if not wholly in his own words, at least coloured by his distinctive turns of speech. A second way in which we can explain the uniform style of the new matter in Chronicles and escape the conclusion that it has all been derived from the imagination of the Chronicler is to suppose that for some time past it had been transmitted through the talk or writing of Levites like-minded with the Chronicler and sharing the same ecclesiastical fashion of speech; that, in fact, much of Chronicles was built up by chroniclers before the Chronicler. There may be some truth in this argument; for, as was said above, the Chronicler was surely not the first Levite to feel the need for an “orthodox” history. The two explanations can be regarded as supplementary rather than alternative; but the present writer considers that stress should be laid chiefly upon the first.
This investigation of the structure of Chronicles yields the following general result. The position here taken is opposed to the theory that the whole of the new material was the product of the Chronicler’s imagination and literary skill. It leaves open the valuable possibility that the new material may preserve historical facts and traditions independent of those in Kings. On the other hand it admits that the Chronicler has had an important share in shaping the material and that (a) the consequent uniformity of style renders any attempt to analyse the new matter into its proximate sources precarious (observe, however, that the immediate history of the sources behind the new material is not of such primary importance to us as is the fundamental conclusion that there were such sources): and (b) whilst each part of the new matter is entitled to a thorough examination on its merits, great care must be exercised to determine exactly what part the Chronicler has played. Thus it is probable that some features of the narratives in Chronicles may originate with the Chronicler: that is only what we should expect from a man able to plan and carry through a work so clearly intentioned and on such a large scale as Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah. He may have told his tale not only in his own words, but in his own way. We must be on our guard therefore to make allowance for the strength of his convictions, for his conception of the course of history and for the intentions with which he wrote. How far these considerations affect the historical value of his work will be dealt with below ([§ 7]).