[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.).