192, d.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONCLUDED.

But the application of this theory in detail is very uncertain and complicated. It is conceded that the author did not derive the alterations and additions-in which he differs from the earlier books-merely from the Midrash, but that he himself made interpolations. Thus Movers thinks 1 Ch. xvi. 40, is an interpolation by the Chronicler, because it disturbs the connection." But the cases in which he departs from the earlier books, and is supposed to have followed another authority, are almost always doubtful. If there were only additions, and sometimes large ones, we might be satisfied with this theory. But if there are interpolations made in these very earlier accounts, we do not see why the author himself may not have originated them;' at

But is he correct in stating the design of placing ten priests before the tabernacle? (verse 39.) He thinks, also, that, in verse 41, the words "to thank Jehovah because his mercy endureth forever," are interpolated. But here the same question may be asked as before. In verse 42, says Movers, with these words, " and with them Heman and Jeduthun," the author proceeds with copying the longer (?) list of names he had begun, but left off in verse 41 But if this were so, he must have left off again, for only two names follow. The senseless repetition," and with them," &c., (41, 42,) may be ascribed to the Chronicler without such a process.

It is likewise a mistake that he refers to his authority with the words "; for it does not mean that "they (who are mentioned in the hypothetical register) are given with their names," but "they were (expressly) designated by their names." These words are to be connected with the following, "to thank Jehovah,” [just as it reads in the English version.] See, also, 1 Ch. xii. 31, 2 Ch. xxi. 19. Movers, p. 169. The same is the case with 1 Ch. xxi., where it is difficult to determine what is the Chronicler's amplifying detail and addition from another source, that Movers speaks of in p. 224.

Now, Movers admits (p. 224) that small additions, designed to perfect

least, nothing is gained by this hypothesis in favor of the credibility of the book, and the explanation of its origin is removed still farther off. Here I am reminded of a passage in my Beiträge "It troubles me little to prove that the author of the Chronicles-that is, the man

the account, have been derived from other sources, and refers to 1 Ch. xi. 6, 8, compared with 2 Sam. v. 8, 9, 2 Ch. xi. 42—47, compared with 2 Sam. xxiii. 39, and other places. But where is the certainty that such was the origin of these passages? According to him, (p. 186, 187,) the account (2 Ch. vii. 1—3) that fire fell from heaven, and the glory of Jehovah filled the house, is derived from another source, which was a recasting of 1 Kings viii. 1—11, — where Solomon brings the ark into the temple, and the glory of Jehovah fills the house,- because otherwise it is not conceivable that the Chronicler (in verse 2) could repeat the account of the glory of Jehovah, which he had already (in v. 14) copied from 1 Kings viii. 10, 11. But 2 Ch. vii. 1, corresponds with 1 Kings viii. 54. Now, the Chronicler, instead of making Solomon bless the people after his prayer, [as in Kings,] makes fire come down from heaven, as the result of his prayer. With this he connects the mention of the glory of Jehovah, partly for the sake of the similarity between them, and partly from analogy with Levit. ix. 23, 24, where the glory of Jehovah appears to the people.

It is very improbable that the Chronicler, on the other hand, in 1 Ch. xiii. xv. xvi., observed the earlier accounts, as Movers thinks he did, (p. 166,) — or derived 1 Ch. xiii. 1-5, from the second source, and verses 6-14 from 2 Sam. But why did the Chronicler depart from that, and what did it contain on this point? To judge from the result, it could afford him more than the earlier accounts. Movers ascribes the interruption of the account by the insertion of chap. xiv. to the Chronicler; xv. 1—-24, he derives from the second source; but verse 25, from 2 Sam.; verse 27, from the second source, verse 27, which speaks of the twofold raiment of David-[an overcoat of byssus, and a mantle of linen, 7 3, and 73 TEN] is a combination of the different accounts of the two sources. (This is not bad!) Chap. xv. 28-xvi. 3, proceeds in unison with 2 Sam. vi. ; in verses 15-19, the agreement is verbal. But is this derived from the second source, or does it contain nothing therefrom? If so, it passes over the chief matters in silence. He thinks that at 2 Sam. vi. 15, the Chronicler inserted the matter derived from the second source, and contained in xv. 16, sqq. But, in the one case, he tells what is to be done, in the other, what is done; therefore there is no repetition. Before the last words of 2 Sam. vi. 19, he inserts from his second source the different account of placing the Levites before the ark, &c., (xvi. 4 -42,) and in verse 43, he comes back to the last words in 2 Sam. vi. 19 and 20. But it remains unexplained why he omits the rest of 2 Sam. vi. 20-23,

who gave them the precise form in which we have them now in an arbitrary, and therefore deceptive, manner made the alterations, additions, and falsifications, which I shall proceed to detail. It is possible that, in the course of time, several writers have taken a part in disfiguring the accounts which yet remain unfalsified in the books of Samuel and Kings. Who will contend about that? But as the Chronicle lies before us, it makes a whole of the same character throughout. This character, then, without any falsehood, may be ascribed to one author."

It has been unjustly denied, that, in the time of the Chronicler, there were various writings which have not found a place in the canon.' But the literary references are not to be trusted, as it appears from the false citation of Jeremiah's Lamentations, in 2 Ch. xxxv. 25, which is made on the erroneous notion that Josiah's death was the subject of Jeremiah's Lamentations. It is doubtful

or, at least, verse 22, and therefore there seems no reason for this alleged return to this document.

The departure, in 2 Ch. xxiii. 1—12, from 2 Kings xi., is explained by Movers (p. 307, sqq.) from the use of the second source; but the prohibition in verse 6, "Let none but the priests and they that minister of the Levites come into the house of Jehovah," is ascribed to the Chronicler. In 2 Ch. xxiii. 12, the interpolating alteration of D is acknowledged, and it is admitted that the account in Chronicles is unintelligible without the other.

The case is the same with 2 Ch. xxiv. 4-14. Compare 2 Kings xii. 5– 16, (p. 312, sqq.) See above, § 190, c, p. 287. According to Movers, (p. 103,) 2 Ch. xii. 2, was derived verbally from 1 Kings xiv. 25, then verses 3-8 from the second source, and with verse 9 the Chronicler turned to 2 Kings. But verses 3-8, as well as verse 12, are more correctly considered an interpolation, as it appears from the fact that the connection is disturbed. The remark, in verse 12, that Rehoboam humbled himself, which connects with verse 6, is too late after what has been said in verses 10, 11. It should follow after verse 9, and be connected with the statement that God gave the promised assistance, and sent away again the king of Egypt; but the admonitory interpolator did not know this, for it was not in 2 Kings.

a Vol. i. p. 61.

Gramberg, p. 25. On the other hand, Movers, p. 103, Zunz, p. 34.

whether the prophet Jehu-whom we find under Baasha, king of Israel, (1 Kings xvi. 1, 7)-could have been active under Jehoshaphat, who was king of Judah, more than thirty years after, (2 Ch. xix. 2,) as it is implied in the reference to his discourses, (2 Ch. xx. 34.) Yet these (false) discourses are found among the authorities of the Chronicler.

§ 192, e.

DESIGN AND AUTHOR.

The design of the author was obviously this to give an account of the theocratic kingdom of David, which was obviously, but slightly, connected by genealogies, and the death of Saul, with the earlier history of the people of Israel, -an account of that kingdom, which at first embraced all the twelve tribes, and afterwards only the tribe of Judah, and the tribes belonging to it, -the kingdom which observed the Mosaic law, and the Mosaic worship,-and to show how, in this, the true worship of God was preserved in all its perfection under pious kings, or restored by them, and how apostasy from this brought on distress and ruin. This he does in such a manner that the light far surpasses the dark side. Every thing is tried by the priestly standard.

The author is unknown; but it is certain he must be sought among the priests. [Carpzov, Eichhorn, and Hävernik, follow Baba Bathra, and consider Ezra the author. Jahn and Bertholdt differ from that opinion."

"Baba Bathra, fol. 15, c. 1. Carpzov, l. c. p. 236. Eichhorn, § 494. Hảvernik, vol. ii. pt. i. p. 268, sqq. Jahn, vol. ii. p. 245. Bertholdt, p. 987. On the opinion that its author wrote, also, the book of Ezra, see below, § 196, b.

Horne, after stating his reasons for the belief that Ezra did not write the books, says, "Their authenticity is abundantly supported by the general mass of external evidence; by which, also, their divine authority is fully established, as well as by the direct attestations of our Lord and his apostles." "Independently of the important moral and religious instruction to be derived from the two books of Chronicles, .. the second book is extremely valuable in a critical point of view, not only as it contains some historical particulars which are not mentioned in any other part of the Old Testament, but also as it affords us many genuine readings The discrepancies between the books of Kings and Chronicles, though very numerous, are not of any great moment, and admit of an easy solution, being partly caused by various lections, and partly arising from the nature of the books, which, being supplementary to those of Samuel and Kings, omit what is there related more at large, and supply what is there wanting." Respecting this opinion nothing need be said.']

Horne, 1. c. pt. v. ch. ii. § vii. vol. ii. p. 222, sqq.

b [The spirit of a considerable part of these books resembles that shown in the public prayers offered by authority in England after the troubles of Charles II. See them in King's Life of Locke, 2d ed. vol. i. p. 261 sqq.]