Chronicles, Book of

CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF.

By: Emil G. Hirsch, W. H. Bennett

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4371-chronicles-books-of

—Biblical Data:

The two books of Chronicles form a history of the Temple and its priesthood, and of the house of David and the tribe of Judah, as guardians of the Temple, with references to the other tribes, and with some connected material. The contents may be briefly summarized as follows:

—In Rabbinical Literature:

Rabbinical literature does not recognize the division of Chronicles into two books. In B. B. 15a it is named as one 

), and the Masorah counts the verse I Chron. xxvii. 25 as the middle of the book. Tradition regards this one book as consisting of two unequal parts; viz., (1) lists largely of a genealogical nature with brief historical details; and (2) an extensive history of the kings in Jerusalem. The authorship of the first part, which is designated "Yaḥas" (

Table of Contents

 = "genealogy") of the "Dibre ha-Yamim" is ascribed to Ezra (B. B. 15a). In Pes. 62b this part is connected with a Midrash and quoted as 

 ("Book of the Descents"); while Rashi names the Midrash (), "Mishnah of Dibre ha-Yamim," etc., which, according to him, contained expositions of certain passages of the Torah. This part was not to be explained to the men of Lud nor to those of Nehardea, for reasons not stated; perhaps it was feared that these interpretations might meet with irreverence.

On the whole, Chronicles was regarded with suspicion; its historical accuracy was doubted by the Talmudic authorities, it being held to be a book for homiletic interpretation,   (Lev. R. i. 3; Ruth R. ii., beginning; compare Meg. 13a). The names were treated with great freedom; and many which clearly belonged to different persons were declared to indicate one and the same man or woman (Soṭah 12a; Ex. R. i. 17, et passim). Numerous as these fanciful interpretations of verses in Chronicles are in Talmudic-Midrashic literature, the loss of many similar expositions was deplored (Pes. 62b).

Title.

—Critical View.

—I. Position in Old Testament Literature: Chronicles, which in the Hebrew canon consists of a single book, is called in the Hebrew Bible 

 ("Annals"); in the LXX.—Codex B, παραλειπομέω ("of things left out"); Codex A adds (τῶ) βασιλέω ιοδà ("concerning the kings of Judah"); i.e., a supplement to the Book of Kings; in the Vulgate, Liber Primus (and Secundus) "Paralipomenon." The modern title "Chronicles" was suggested by Jerome's speaking of the book in his "Prologus Galeatus" as "Chronicon totius divinæ historiæ." The book belongs to the Hagiographa, or "Ketubim," the third and latest-formed section of the Hebrew canon. The view that its canonicity was matter of discussion among the Jews seems to rest on insufficient evidence (Buhl, "Kanon und Text des A. T." Eng. ed., p. 31). In Hebrew lists, manuscripts, and printed Bibles, Chronicles is placed either first (Western or Palestinian practise, as in the St. Petersburg Codex), or last (Eastern or Babylonian, as in the Babylonian Talmud); see Ginsburg, "Introduction," pp. 1-8. In Greek and Latin lists, and in manuscripts and editions of the LXX. and Vulgate, Chronicles usually follows Kings; the exceptions are more numerous in the Latin lists (Swete, "The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint," Introduction, pp. 201-230).

Chronicles, originally a single work, is first found divided into two books in Codices A and B of the LXX., which were followed by subsequent versions, and ultimately by printed editions of the Hebrew text. It is part of a larger work, Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, composed (see Section II.) in the Greek period between the death of Alexander (B.C.323) and the revolt of the Maccabees (B.C. 167). It expresses the piety of the Temple community, and their interest in its services and history. They felt that the services had reached an ideal perfection, and were led to think of the "good kings" as having shaped their religious policy according to this ideal. Probably the author of Chronicles did not intend to supersede Samuel and Kings. There are slight traces of Chronicles in Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), (e.g., xlvii. 8 et seq.; compare I Chron. xxv.); perhaps also in Philo (see Ryle, "Philo and Holy Scriptures," pp. 286 et seq.), and in the N. T. (for example, compare II Chron. xxiv. 21 with Matt. xxiii. 35). The references to Samuel-Kings are more numerous. The omission (see Swete, l.c. p. 227) of Chronicles from some Christian lists of canonical books is probably accidental.

Authorship and Date.

II. Composition:

I Chronicles.II Chronicles.

The non-Biblical sources may be classified thus:

In the absence of numbered divisions like the present chapters and verses, portions of the work are indicated by the name of the prophet who figures in it—probably because the Prophets were supposed to have been the annalists (ib.xxvi. 22). Thus, "the Vision of Isaiah" is said to be in "The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel"; and "the Words of Jehu the son of Hanani," inserted in "The Book of the Kings of Israel."

Thus the main source of Chronicles seems to have been a late post-exilic Midrashic history of the kings of Judah and Israel. Possibly, this had been divided into histories of David and Solomon, and of the later kings. The author may also have used a collection of genealogies; and perhaps additions were made to the book after it was substantially complete. In dealing with matter not found in other books it is difficult to distinguish between matter which the chronicler found in his source, matter which he added himself, and later additions, as all the authors concerned wrote in the same spirit and style; but it may perhaps be concluded that details about Levites, porters, and singers are the work of the chronicler (compare Section III. of this article).

III. Relationship to Samuel-Kings:

IV. Historical Value:

The character of another set of additions is not so clear; viz., Abijah's victory (II Chron. xiii.), Zerah's invasion (ib. xiv., xv.), and Manasseh's captivity (ib. xxxiii.). However little the chronicler may have cared about writing scientific history, the fact that he narrates an incident not mentioned elsewhere does not prove it to be imaginary. Kings is fragmentary; and its editors had views as to edification different from those of the chronicler (see Judges), which might lead them to omit what their successor would restore. Driver and others hold that Chronicles is connected with early sources by another line than that through Kings (note also C, Section II. d). Hence the silence of Kings is not conclusive against these additions. Nevertheless, such narratives, in the present state of knowledge, rest on the unsupported testimony of a very late and uncritical authority. Much turns on internal evidence, which has been very variously interpreted. Some recognize a historical basis for these narratives (W. E. Barnes, in "Cambridge Bible," pp. xxx. et seq.; A. H. Sayce, "The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments," p. 465); others regard them as wholly unhistorical (see "Chronicles, Books of," in "Encyc. Bibl."). As to Chronicles in general, Professor Sayce writes (l.c. p. 464): "The consistent exaggeration of numbers on the part of the chronicler shows us that from a historical point of view his unsupported statements must be received with caution. But they do not justify the accusations of deliberate fraud and 'fiction' which have been brought against him. What they prove is that he did not possess that sense of historical exactitude which we now demand from the historian."

Bibliography: