AND NEHEMIAH.
The writer lived a considerable time after Ezra and stood entirely under the influence of the religious institutions of the new theocracy. This standpoint determined the nature of his interest in the early history of his people. The true importance of the history of Israel centred in the fact that this petty nation was the people of Yahweh, the spiritual God. The tragic interest which distinguishes its annals from the f or gotten history of Moab or Damascus lies wholly in that contest which vindicated the reality of spiritual things and the supremacy of Yahweh's purpose, in the political ruin of the nation which was the faithless depository of these sacred truths. After the re turn from the Exile it was impossible to write the history of Israel's fortunes otherwise than in a spirit of religious pragma tism. But within the limits of the religious conception of the plan and purpose of the Hebrew history more than one point of view might be taken up. The book of Kings looks upon the history in the spirit of the prophets—in that spirit which is still echoed by Zech. i. 5 seq., but which had become extinct before the Chronicler wrote. The New Jerusalem of Ezra was organized as a munici pality and a church, not as a nation. The centre of religious life was no longer the living prophetic word but the ordinances of the Pentateuch and the liturgical service of the sanctuary. The religious vocation of Israel was no longer national but ecclesias tical or municipal, and the historical continuity of the nation was vividly realized only within the walls of Jerusalem and the courts of the Temple, in the solemn assembly and stately ceremonial of a feast day. These influences naturally operated most strongly on those who were officially attached to the sanctuary. To a Levite, even more than to other Jews, the history of Israel meant above all things the history of Jerusalem, of the Temple, and of the Temple ordinances. Now the writer of Chronicles betrays on every page his essentially Levitical habit of mind. It even seems possible from a close attention to his descriptions of sacred ordinances to conclude that his special interests are those of a common Levite rather than a priest, and that of all Levitical functions he is most partial to those of the singers, a member of whose guild he may have been. From the standpoint of the post exilic age, the older delineation of the history of Israel, especially in the books of Samuel and Kings, could not but appear to be deficient in some directions, while in other respects its narrative seemed superfluous or open to misunderstanding, as for example by recording, and that without condemnation, things inconsistent with the later post-exilic law. The history of the ordinances of worship holds a very small place in the older record. Jerusalem and the Temple have not that central place in the book of Kings which they occupied in the minds of the Jewish community after the Exile. Large sections of the old history are devoted to the religion and politics of the ten tribes, which are altogether unin telligible and uninteresting when measured by a strictly Levitical standard; and in general the whole problems and struggles of the prophetic period turn on points which had ceased to be cardinal in the life of the New Jerusalem, which was no longer called to decide between the claims of the Word of Yahweh and the exigencies of political affairs and social customs, and which could not comprehend that men absorbed in deeper spiritual contests had no leisure for the niceties of Levitical legislation. Thus there seemed to be room for a new history, which should confine itself to matters still interesting to the theocracy of Zion, keeping Jerusalem and the Temple in the foreground, and developing the divine pragmatism of the history, not so much with reference to the prophetic word as to the fixed legislation of the Pentateuch, so that the whole narrative might be made to teach that the glory of Israel lies in the observance of the divine law and ritual.
For the sake of systematic completeness the book begins with Adam, as is the custom with later Oriental writers. The early history is contracted into a series of tribal and priestly genealogies, which were doubtless by no means the least interest ing part of the work at a time when every Israelite was concerned to prove the purity of his Hebrew descent (cf. Ezra ii. 59, 62). Commencing abruptly (after some Benjamite genealogies) with the death of Saul, the history becomes fuller and runs parallel with the books of Samuel and Kings. The limitations of the compiler's interest in past times appears in the omission, among other particulars, of David's reign in Hebron, of the disorders in his family, and the revolt of Absalom, of the circumstances of Solomon's accession, and of many details as to the wisdom and splendour of that sovereign, as well as of his fall into idolatry. In the later history the ten tribes are quite neglected ("Yahweh is not with Israel," 2 Chron. xxv. 7), and political affairs in Judah receive attention, not in proportion to their intrinsic importance, but according as they serve to exemplify God's help to the obedient and His chastisement of the rebellious. That the com piler is always unwilling to speak of the misfortunes of good rulers is not necessarily to be ascribed to a deliberate suppression of truth, but shows that the book was throughout composed not in purely historical interests, but with a view to inculcating prac tical lessons. The more important additions to the older narrative consist partly of statistical lists (r Chron. xii.), partly of full details on points connected with the history of the sanctuary and the great feasts or the archaeology of the Levitical ministry ( r Chron.
xv., xvi., xxii.–xxix.; 2 Chron. xxix.–xxxi., etc.), and partly of narratives of victories and defeats, of sins and pun ishments, of obedience and its reward, which could be made to point a plain religious lesson in favour of faithful observance of the law (2 Chron.
xiv. 9 sqq.; xx., xxi. rr sqq., etc.). The minor variations of Chronicles from the books of Samuel and Kings are analogous in principle to the larger additions and omissions, so that the whole work has a consistent and well marked character, presenting the history in quite a different per spective from that of the old narrative.
Value.—For a critical study of the book it is necessary to compare carefully Chronicles with the parallel narrative in Sam uel–Kings. "A careful comparison of Chronicles with Samuel and Kings is a striking object lesson in ancient historical corn position ; it is an almost indispensable introduction to the criti cism of the Pentateuch and the older historical works" (W. H. Bennett, Chronicles, p. 20 seq.). Where Chronicles directly con tradicts the earlier books there are few cases in which an im partial historical judgment will decide in favour of the later account, and in any point that touches difference of usage be tween its time and that of the old monarchy it is of no authority. A certain freedom of literary form was always allowed to ancient historians; and the typical speeches in Chronicles are of little value for the periods to which they relate, especially where they are inconsistent with the evidence from earlier writings. Accord ing to the ordinary laws of research, the book, being written at a time long posterior to the events it records, can have only secondary importance, although here and there valuable material has been preserved. It must be remembered that the earlier books contain only a portion of the material to which the compilers had access. Hence it may well happen that the additional details, which unfortunately cannot be checked, were ultimately derived from sources as reputable as those in the books of Samuel, Kings, etc. As examples may be cited Rehoboam's buildings, etc. ( 2 Chron. xi. 5-12, 18 sqq.); Jeroboam's attack upon Abijah; (2 Chron. xiii., cf. I Kings xv. 7) ; the invasion of Zerah in Asa's reign (2 Chron. xiv. ; see AsA) ; Jehoshaphat's wars and judicial measures (2 Chron. xvii. xx. ; see 1 Kings xxii. 45) ; Jehoram's family (2 Chron. xxi. 2-4) ; relations between Jehoiada and Joash (2 Chron. xxiv. 3, 15 sqq.) ; conflicts between Ephraim and Judah (2 Chron. xxv. 6-13) ; wars of Uzziah and Jotham ( 2 Chron. xxvi. seq.); events in the reign of Ahaz (2 Chron. xxviii. 8-15,18 seq.) ; reforms of Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxix. sqq., cf. Jer. xxvi. 19) ; Manasseh's captivity, repentance, and buildings ( 2 Chron. xxxiii. Io-2o; see 2 Kings xxi. and MANASSEH) ; the death of Josiah (2 Chron. xxxv. 20-25). In addition to this reference may be made to such tantalizing statements as those in I Chron. ii 23 (R.v.), iv. 39-41, v. i o, 18-22, Vii. 21 seq., viii. 13, xii. 15, examples of the kind of tradition, national and private, upon which writers could draw. Although in their pres ent form the additional narratives are in the chronicler's style, it is not necessary to deny an older traditional element which may have been preserved in sources now lost to us.
BiSI,IocRAPSy.—Robertson Smith's famous article in the 9th ed. of the Ency. Brit. was modified by his later views in Old Test. in the Jewish Church, pp.
Later literature is summarized by Driver in his revision of Smith's article in Ency. Bib. and in his Lit. of Old Test., by F. Brown in Hasting's Dict. Bib. and by Elmslie (in the Cambridge Bible) . (W. R. S.; S. A. C.)
