§ 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.