The books of Chronicles

by W. A. L. Elmslie

(1) Date and Unity. The scope of our inquiry in this section requires to be defined with some care. In dealing with any work which is chiefly a compilation of older material, it is necessary clearly to distinguish between the dates of the various sources which can be recognised or surmised and the dates of the writer or writers who have effected the compilation. When we examine the structure of Chronicles its composite nature is at once evident. Many long and important passages have been taken, with or without adaptation, directly from the existing books of Scripture. The date of all such passages, of course, falls to be considered in the commentaries on Samuel or Kings or wherever their original setting may be. The remainder of Chronicles presents an intricate but interesting problem. It has been held that there are no sources involved in this remaining portion but that the whole is the free composition of the writer who quoted or adapted the passages from earlier books of Scripture referred to above. According to the view taken in this volume, sources other than these “canonical” books were utilised in the formation of Chronicles, although for reasons suggested in § 5 (q.v., pp. xxxvi f.) such sources are not easy to distinguish from the work of the compiler himself. The little which can be said regarding the origin and history of these supposed sources may conveniently be reserved for the section dealing with the Sources ([§ 5]). The question, therefore, which is before us in this section is the date of the editorial process to which we owe the present form of Chronicles. Fortunately the answer is simplified by one important fact, namely the remarkable homogeneity of Chronicles–Ezra–Nehemiah. To such a degree are these books characterised by unity of style, vocabulary, standpoint and purpose (see below; also [§ 2] and [§ 6]), that we may safely conclude they are essentially the product of one mind: they have reached substantially their present form in the course of a single editorial process. Conceivably the work was achieved by a small body of Levites (see below under [Authorship]), contemporaries, sharing the same training and outlook; but it is much more reasonable to infer the activity of a single writer—the Chronicler. It is his date which we proceed to consider. The evidence may be grouped under three heads, of which the last two (B, C) are of chief importance.

(A) (1) In 1 Chronicles xxix. 7 a sum of money is reckoned in darics, a Persian coinage introduced by Darius I (521–486 B.C.).

(2) In 1 Chronicles iii. 19b–24 (see [note] ad loc.) according to the Hebrew the line of David’s family is traced to the sixth generation after Zerubbabel (circa 520 B.C.). Hence, reckoning a generation as about 20 to 30 years, this passage would indicate a date not earlier than 400 B.C. or 340 B.C. The Greek, Syriac, and Latin Versions, however, differ from the Hebrew by extending the line to the eleventh generation after Zerubbabel. That would imply a date possibly as late as 200 B.C. and not earlier than about 300 B.C., but it is very doubtful whether we can here rely upon the text of these Versions, and obviously it was easy for a translator or scribe to carry the list on to his own date. This piece of evidence, therefore, for the later date cannot be pressed, although it is worthy of notice.

Since, as we have said ([§ 2]), Ezra–Nehemiah formed originally one book with Chronicles, evidence for the date of Chronicles is also furnished by any indications of date which occur in Ezra–Nehemiah.

(3) In Nehemiah xii. 22 we find the significant phrase “to the reign of Darius, the Persian.” Now as long as the Persian empire stood such a description would have no point when written by a Jewish writer. For two hundred years down to 332 B.C., when Syria and Phoenicia fell into the hands of Alexander the Great, the rulers of Judea were all “Persians.” But from 332 B.C. onward Greek monarchs were the rulers of Palestine, and nothing is more natural than that a Jewish chronicler writing under their rule should refer to a king of the older régime as “the Persian.”

(4) Further, in Nehemiah xii. 26, 47 the phrase “in the days of Nehemiah” occurs, implying that for the writer Nehemiah belonged to the past, but, as one cannot say how near or how distant a past, the point carries little weight.

(5) Again, in Nehemiah xii. 10, 11 and 22, 23, a list of high-priests is given, concluding with the name of Jaddua, whom the Chronicler evidently (and correctly, compare Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews xi. 7, 8) knew to have been the high-priest about 332 B.C., at the end of the reign of Darius (Darius III, Codomannus), when the Persian Empire collapsed before the attack of Alexander the Great.

These details, indicative of the date of composition, are as numerous as we have any right to expect in a work of the nature of Chronicles, which deals with past history. Their evidential value can of course be criticised by supposing that the passages in question are late interpolations and have therefore no bearing on the date of the main body of the work. But no solid grounds are adduced for this objection, and the burden of proof lies upon the objector. The supposition is extremely improbable, and may be dismissed in view of the fact that (B) the general character, and (C) the linguistic peculiarities of Chronicles alike demand a date considerably later than the period of Ezra–Nehemiah.

(B) The character of Chronicles has already been referred to, but in a different connection (§ 2, pp. [xvi] f.). Here the point to notice is that throughout the entire work the whole system of law and ritual found in the Pentateuch is presupposed as existing in its final form. This system, which may conveniently be described as Priestly (P) in distinction from the earlier system to which the name Deuteronomic (D) is applied, and the still earlier standpoint represented by the Jahvistic and Elohistic writers (J and E), may have been of slow growth, and no doubt embodies features of law and ritual which are of relatively high antiquity. But there is overwhelming evidence to prove that, as an organised and completed system, it cannot be dated earlier than the period of Nehemiah (circa 425 B.C.). Now in Chronicles not only is this final code in force; it has evidently been so long and so firmly established that the Chronicler did not know, or at least did not believe, that any other earlier system had once ruled the practice of Israel. He belonged to a period when the development of the Pentateuch was no more remembered, and when its origin—in all completeness—had come to be ascribed with absolute confidence to the remote past, in accordance with that religious instinct which we have described above on p. [xiv]. Manifestly, a considerable lapse of time after Nehemiah’s period must be allowed for that conviction to have become established.

Another consideration is found in the attitude of the Chronicler towards the kingdom of Israel. For the apostate Northern Kingdom the Chronicler has only contempt and hatred and displays no interest whatever in its fortunes, except that he takes pains occasionally to indicate the corruption of the North, thus emphasising by contrast the virtue of the Judeans. His absorption in the affairs of Jerusalem and his bitter antagonism to the North in all likelihood reflect the anger felt by the post-exilic Jews of Jerusalem against the Samaritans after the famous schism between the two communities. Indeed it is possible, [§ 6] (1), that his work was directly inspired by the necessity of combating the religious pretensions of the Samaritans with their Temple on Mt Gerizim, rivalling Jerusalem. The Samaritan schism is generally supposed to date from 432 B.C., but there are grounds for thinking that it was not so early, and possibly the Temple on Mt Gerizim may have been built, not in 432, but in 332 B.C. If the later date be correct, we have strong evidence for dating Chronicles not earlier than the last half of the fourth century B.C.